{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45304/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45304","id":"gutenberg_45304","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45304","summary":null,"tags":["Apologetics -- Early works to 1800","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Kingdom of God -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"THE WORKS\n\n                                  OF\n\n                          AURELIUS AUGUSTINE,\n\n                           BISHOP OF HIPPO.\n\n                         _A NEW TRANSLATION._\n\n                            =Edited by the=\n\n                        REV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.\n\n\n                                VOL. I.\n\n                           THE CITY OF GOD,\n\n                               VOLUME I.\n\n\n                              EDINBURGH:\n                   T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.\n\n                              MDCCCLXXI.\n\n\n\n\n                      PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,\n\n                                  FOR\n\n                       T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.\n\n                LONDON,         HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.\n                DUBLIN,         JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.\n                NEW YORK,       C. SCRIBNER AND CO.\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n\n                             CITY OF GOD.\n\n                          =Translated by the=\n\n                        REV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.\n\n                               VOLUME I.\n\n\n                              EDINBURGH:\n                   T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.\n\n                              MDCCCLXXI.\n\n\nOf the following Work, Books IV. XVII. and XVIII. have been\ntranslated by the Rev. GEORGE WILSON, Glenluce; Books V. VI. VII. and\nVIII. by the Rev. J. J. SMITH.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                BOOK I.\n\n                                                               PAGE\n\n  Augustine censures the pagans, who attributed the calamities of the\n      world, and especially the sack of Rome by the Goths, to the\n      Christian religion and its prohibition of the worship of the\n      gods,                                                       1\n\n\n                               BOOK II.\n\n  A review of the calamities suffered by the Romans before the time\n      of Christ, showing that their gods had plunged them into\n      corruption and vice,                                       48\n\n\n                               BOOK III.\n\n  The external calamities of Rome,                               91\n\n\n                               BOOK IV.\n\n  That empire was given to Rome not by the gods, but by the One True\n      God,                                                      135\n\n\n                                BOOK V.\n\n  Of fate, freewill, and God's prescience, and of the source of the\n      virtues of the ancient Romans,                            177\n\n\n                               BOOK VI.\n\n  Of Varro's threefold division of theology, and of the inability of\n      the gods to contribute anything to the happiness of the future\n      life,                                                     228\n\n\n                               BOOK VII.\n\n  Of the \"select gods\" of the civil theology, and that eternal life\n      is not obtained by worshipping them,                      258\n\n\n                              BOOK VIII.\n\n  Some account of the Socratic and Platonic philosophy, and a\n      refutation of the doctrine of Apuleius that the demons should\n      be worshipped as mediators between gods and men,          305\n\n\n                               BOOK IX.\n\n  Of those who allege a distinction among demons, some being good\n      and others evil,                                          353\n\n                                BOOK X.\n\n  Porphyry's doctrine of redemption,                            382\n\n\n                               BOOK XI.\n\n  Augustine passes to the second part of the work, in which the\n      origin, progress, and destinies of the earthly and heavenly\n      cities are discussed.--Speculations regarding the creation of\n      the world,                                                436\n\n\n                               BOOK XII.\n\n  Of the creation of angels and men, and of the origin of evil, 481\n\n\n                              BOOK XIII.\n\n  That death is penal, and had its origin in Adam's sin,        521\n\n\n\n\n                           EDITOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\n\"Rome having been stormed and sacked by the Goths under Alaric\ntheir king,[1] the worshippers of false gods, or pagans, as we\ncommonly call them, made an attempt to attribute this calamity to\nthe Christian religion, and began to blaspheme the true God with\neven more than their wonted bitterness and acerbity. It was this\nwhich kindled my zeal for the house of God, and prompted me to\nundertake the defence of the city of God against the charges and\nmisrepresentations of its assailants. This work was in my hands for\nseveral years, owing to the interruptions occasioned by many other\naffairs which had a prior claim on my attention, and which I could\nnot defer. However, this great undertaking was at last completed in\ntwenty-two books. Of these, the first five refute those who fancy\nthat the polytheistic worship is necessary in order to secure worldly\nprosperity, and that all these overwhelming calamities have befallen\nus in consequence of its prohibition. In the following five books I\naddress myself to those who admit that such calamities have at all\ntimes attended, and will at all times attend, the human race, and\nthat they constantly recur in forms more or less disastrous, varying\nonly in the scenes, occasions, and persons on whom they light, but,\nwhile admitting this, maintain that the worship of the gods is\nadvantageous for the life to come. In these ten books, then, I refute\nthese two opinions, which are as groundless as they are antagonistic\nto the Christian religion.\n\n\"But that no one might have occasion to say, that though I had\nrefuted the tenets of other men, I had omitted to establish my\nown, I devote to this object the second part of this work, which\ncomprises twelve books, although I have not scrupled, as occasion\noffered, either to advance my own opinions in the first ten books,\nor to demolish the arguments of my opponents in the last twelve. Of\nthese twelve books, the first four contain an account of the origin\nof these two cities--the city of God, and the city of the world.\nThe second four treat of their history or progress; the third and\nlast four, of their deserved destinies. And so, though all these\ntwenty-two books refer to both cities, yet I have named them after\nthe better city, and called them The City of God.\"\n\nSuch is the account given by Augustine himself[2] of the occasion\nand plan of this his greatest work. But in addition to this explicit\ninformation, we learn from the correspondence[3] of Augustine, that\nit was due to the importunity of his friend Marcellinus that this\ndefence of Christianity extended beyond the limits of a few letters.\nShortly before the fall of Rome, Marcellinus had been sent to Africa\nby the Emperor Honorius to arrange a settlement of the differences\nbetween the Donatists and the Catholics. This brought him into\ncontact not only with Augustine, but with Volusian, the proconsul\nof Africa, and a man of rare intelligence and candour. Finding that\nVolusian, though as yet a pagan, took an interest in the Christian\nreligion, Marcellinus set his heart on converting him to the true\nfaith. The details of the subsequent significant intercourse between\nthe learned and courtly bishop and the two imperial statesmen,\nare unfortunately almost entirely lost to us; but the impression\nconveyed by the extant correspondence is, that Marcellinus was\nthe means of bringing his two friends into communication with one\nanother. The first overture was on Augustine's part, in the shape of\na simple and manly request that Volusian would carefully peruse the\nScriptures, accompanied by a frank offer to do his best to solve any\ndifficulties that might arise in such a course of inquiry. Volusian\naccordingly enters into correspondence with Augustine; and in order\nto illustrate the kind of difficulties experienced by men in his\nposition, he gives some graphic notes of a conversation in which\nhe had recently taken part at a gathering of some of his friends.\nThe difficulty to which most weight is attached in this letter, is\nthe apparent impossibility of believing in the Incarnation. But a\nletter which Marcellinus immediately despatched to Augustine, urging\nhim to reply to Volusian at large, brought the intelligence that\nthe difficulties and objections to Christianity were thus limited\nmerely out of a courteous regard to the preciousness of the bishop's\ntime, and the vast number of his engagements. This letter, in short,\nbrought out the important fact, that a removal of speculative doubts\nwould not suffice for the conversion of such men as Volusian, whose\nlife was one with the life of the empire. Their difficulties were\nrather political, historical, and social. They could not see how\nthe reception of the Christian rule of life was compatible with\nthe interests of Rome as the mistress of the world.[4] And thus\nAugustine was led to take a more distinct and wider view of the whole\nrelation which Christianity bore to the old state of things,--moral,\npolitical, philosophical, and religious,--and was gradually drawn on\nto undertake the elaborate work now presented to the English reader,\nand which may more appropriately than any other of his writings be\ncalled his masterpiece[5] or life-work. It was begun the very year\nof Marcellinus' death, A.D. 413, and was issued in detached portions\nfrom time to time, until its completion in the year 426. It thus\noccupied the maturest years of Augustine's life--from his fifty-ninth\nto his seventy-second year.[6]\n\nFrom this brief sketch, it will be seen that though the accompanying\nwork is essentially an Apology, the Apologetic of Augustine can be\nno mere rehabilitation of the somewhat threadbare, if not effete,\narguments of Justin and Tertullian.[7] In fact, as Augustine\nconsidered what was required of him,--to expound the Christian faith,\nand justify it to enlightened men; to distinguish it from, and\nshow its superiority to, all those forms of truth, philosophical or\npopular, which were then striving for the mastery, or at least for\nstanding-room; to set before the world's eye a vision of glory that\nmight win the regard even of men who were dazzled by the fascinating\nsplendour of a world-wide empire,--he recognised that a task was laid\nbefore him to which even his powers might prove unequal,--a task\ncertainly which would afford ample scope for his learning, dialectic,\nphilosophical grasp and acumen, eloquence, and faculty of exposition.\n\nBut it is the occasion of this great Apology which invests it at once\nwith grandeur and vitality. After more than eleven hundred years\nof steady and triumphant progress, Rome had been taken and sacked.\nIt is difficult for us to appreciate, impossible to overestimate,\nthe shock which was thus communicated from centre to circumference\nof the whole known world. It was generally believed, not only by\nthe heathen, but also by many of the most liberal-minded of the\nChristians, that the destruction of Rome would be the prelude to\nthe destruction of the world.[8] Even Jerome, who might have been\nsupposed to be embittered against the proud mistress of the world by\nher inhospitality to himself, cannot conceal his profound emotion\non hearing of her fall. \"A terrible rumour,\" he says, \"reaches me\nfrom the West, telling of Rome besieged, bought for gold, besieged\nagain, life and property perishing together. My voice falters, sobs\nstifle the words I dictate; for she is a captive, that city which\nenthralled the world.\"[9] Augustine is never so theatrical as Jerome\nin the expression of his feeling, but he is equally explicit in\nlamenting the fall of Rome as a great calamity; and while he does not\nscruple to ascribe her recent disgrace to the profligate manners,\nthe effeminacy, and the pride of her citizens, he is not without hope\nthat, by a return to the simple, hardy, and honourable mode of life\nwhich characterized the early Romans, she may still be restored to\nmuch of her former prosperity.[10] But as Augustine contemplates the\nruins of Rome's greatness, and feels, in common with all the world\nat this crisis, the instability of the strongest governments, the\ninsufficiency of the most authoritative statesmanship, there hovers\nover these ruins the splendid vision of the city of God \"coming down\nout of heaven, adorned as a bride for her husband.\" The old social\nsystem is crumbling away on all sides, but in its place he seems to\nsee a pure Christendom arising. He sees that human history and human\ndestiny are not wholly identified with the history of any earthly\npower--not though it be as cosmopolitan as the empire of Rome.[11]\nHe directs the attention of men to the fact that there is another\nkingdom on earth,--a city which hath foundations, whose builder and\nmaker is God. He teaches men to take profounder views of history,\nand shows them how from the first the city of God, or community of\nGod's people, has lived alongside of the kingdoms of this world and\ntheir glory, and has been silently increasing, \"crescit occulto velut\narbor \u00e6vo.\" He demonstrates that the superior morality, the true\ndoctrine, the heavenly origin of this city, ensure its success; and\nover against this, he depicts the silly or contradictory theorizings\nof the pagan philosophers, and the unhinged morals of the people,\nand puts it to all candid men to say, whether in the presence of\nso manifestly sufficient a cause for Rome's downfall, there is\nroom for imputing it to the spread of Christianity. He traces the\nantagonism of these two grand communities of rational creatures,\nback to their first divergence in the fall of the angels, and down\nto the consummation of all things in the last judgment and eternal\ndestination of the good and evil. In other words, the city of God is\n\"the first real effort to produce a philosophy of history,\"[12] to\nexhibit historical events in connection with their true causes, and\nin their real sequence. This plan of the work is not only a great\nconception, but it is accompanied with many practical advantages;\nthe chief of which is, that it admits, and even requires, a full\ntreatment of those doctrines of our faith that are more directly\nhistorical,--the doctrines of creation, the fall, the incarnation,\nthe connection between the Old and New Testaments, and the doctrine\nof \"the last things.\"[13]\n\nThe effect produced by this great work it is impossible to determine\nwith accuracy. Beugnot, with an absoluteness which we should condemn\nas presumption in any less competent authority, declares that its\neffect can only have been very slight.[14] Probably its effect\nwould be silent and slow; telling first upon cultivated minds, and\nonly indirectly upon the people. Certainly its effect must have\nbeen weakened by the interrupted manner of its publication. It is\nan easier task to estimate its intrinsic value. But on this also\npatristic and literary authorities widely differ. Dupin admits that\nit is very pleasant reading, owing to the surprising variety of\nmatters which are introduced to illustrate and forward the argument,\nbut censures the author for discussing very useless questions, and\nfor adducing reasons which could satisfy no one who was not already\nconvinced.[15] Huet also speaks of the book as \"un amas confus\nd'excellents materiaux; c'est de l'or en barre et en lingots.\"[16]\nL'Abb\u00e9 Flottes censures these opinions as unjust, and cites with\napprobation the unqualified eulogy of Pressens\u00e9.[17] But probably the\npopularity of the book is its best justification. This popularity\nmay be measured by the circumstance that, between the year 1467 and\nthe end of the fifteenth century, no fewer than twenty editions\nwere called for, that is to say, a fresh edition every eighteen\nmonths.[18] And in the interesting series of letters that passed\nbetween Ludovicus Vives and Erasmus, who had engaged him to write a\ncommentary on the _City of God_ for his edition of Augustine's works,\nwe find Vives pleading for a separate edition of this work, on the\nplea that, of all the writings of Augustine, it was almost the only\none read by patristic students, and might therefore naturally be\nexpected to have a much wider circulation.[19]\n\nIf it were asked to what this popularity is due, we should be\ndisposed to attribute it mainly to the great variety of ideas,\nopinions, and facts that are here brought before the reader's mind.\nIts importance as a contribution to the history of opinion cannot be\noverrated. We find in it not only indications or explicit enouncement\nof the author's own views upon almost every important topic which\noccupied his thoughts, but also a compendious exhibition of the\nideas which most powerfully influenced the life of that age. It\nthus becomes, as Poujoulat says, \"comme l'encyclop\u00e9die du cinqui\u00e8me\nsi\u00e8cle.\" All that is valuable, together with much indeed that is\nnot so, in the religion and philosophy of the classical nations of\nantiquity, is reviewed. And on some branches of these subjects it\nhas, in the judgment of one well qualified to judge, \"preserved\nmore than the whole surviving Latin literature.\" It is true we\nare sometimes wearied by the too elaborate refutation of opinions\nwhich to a modern mind seem self-evident absurdities; but if these\nopinions were actually prevalent in the fifth century, the historical\ninquirer will not quarrel with the form in which his information is\nconveyed, nor will commit the absurdity of attributing to Augustine\nthe foolishness of these opinions, but rather the credit of exploding\nthem. That Augustine is a well-informed and impartial critic,\nis evinced by the courteousness and candour which he uniformly\ndisplays to his opponents, by the respect he won from the heathen\nthemselves, and by his own early life. The most rigorous criticism\nhas found him at fault regarding matters of fact only in some very\nrare instances, which can be easily accounted for. His learning\nwould not indeed stand comparison with what is accounted such in our\nday: his life was too busy, and too devoted to the poor and to the\nspiritually necessitous, to admit of any extraordinary acquisition.\nHe had access to no literature but the Latin; or at least he had only\nsufficient Greek to enable him to refer to Greek authors on points of\nimportance, and not enough to enable him to read their writings with\nease and pleasure.[20] But he had a profound knowledge of his own\ntime, and a familiar acquaintance not only with the Latin poets, but\nwith many other authors, some of whose writings are now lost to us,\nsave the fragments preserved through his quotations.\n\nBut the interest attaching to the _City of God_ is not merely\nhistorical. It is the earnestness and ability with which he developes\nhis own philosophical and theological views which gradually fascinate\nthe reader, and make him see why the world has set this among the few\ngreatest books of all time. The fundamental lines of the Augustinian\ntheology are here laid down in a comprehensive and interesting form.\nNever was thought so abstract expressed in language so popular.\nHe handles metaphysical problems with the unembarrassed ease of\nPlato, with all Cicero's accuracy and acuteness, and more than\nCicero's profundity. He is never more at home than when exposing\nthe incompetency of Neoplatonism, or demonstrating the harmony of\nChristian doctrine and true philosophy. And though there are in\nthe _City of God_, as in all ancient books, things that seem to us\nchildish and barren, there are also the most surprising anticipations\nof modern speculation. There is an earnest grappling with those\nproblems which are continually re-opened because they underlie man's\nrelation to God and the spiritual world,--the problems which are not\npeculiar to any one century. As we read these animated discussions,\n\n          \"The fourteen centuries fall away\n                 Between us and the Afric saint,\n           And at his side we urge, to-day,\n           The immemorial quest and old complaint.\n\n           No outward sign to us is given,\n                 From sea or earth comes no reply;\n           Hushed as the warm Numidian heaven\n           He vainly questioned bends our frozen sky.\"\n\nIt is true, the style of the book is not all that could be desired:\nthere are passages which can possess an interest only to the\nantiquarian; there are others with nothing to redeem them but\nthe glow of their eloquence; there are many repetitions; there\nis an occasional use of arguments \"plus ingenieux que solides,\"\nas M. Saisset says. Augustine's great admirer, Erasmus, does not\nscruple to call him a writer \"obscur\u00e6 subtilitatis et parum am\u0153n\u00e6\nprolixitatis;\"[21] but \"the toil of penetrating the apparent\nobscurities will be rewarded by finding a real wealth of insight and\nenlightenment.\" Some who have read the opening chapters of the _City\nof God_, may have considered it would be a waste of time to proceed;\nbut no one, we are persuaded, ever regretted reading it all. The\nbook has its faults; but it effectually introduces us to the most\ninfluential of theologians, and the greatest popular teacher; to a\ngenius that cannot nod for many lines together; to a reasoner whose\ndialectic is more formidable, more keen and sifting, than that of\nSocrates or Aquinas; to a saint whose ardent and genuine devotional\nfeeling bursts up through the severest argumentation; to a man whose\nkindliness and wit, universal sympathies and breadth of intelligence,\nlend piquancy and vitality to the most abstract dissertation.\n\nThe propriety of publishing a translation of so choice a specimen\nof ancient literature needs no defence. As Poujoulat very sensibly\nremarks, there are not a great many men now-a-days who will read a\nwork in Latin of twenty-two books. Perhaps there are fewer still who\nought to do so. With our busy neighbours in France, this work has\nbeen a prime favourite for 400 years. There may be said to be eight\nindependent translations of it into the French tongue, though some\nof these are _in part_ merely revisions. One of these translations\nhas gone through as many as four editions. The most recent is that\nwhich forms part of the Nisard series; but the best, so far as we\nhave seen, is that of the accomplished Professor of Philosophy in the\nCollege of France, Emile Saisset. This translation is indeed all that\ncan be desired: here and there an omission occurs, and about one or\ntwo renderings a difference of opinion may exist; but the exceeding\nfelicity and spirit of the whole show it to have been a labour of\nlove, the fond homage of a disciple proud of his master. The preface\nof M. Saisset is one of the most valuable contributions ever made to\nthe understanding of Augustine's philosophy.[22]\n\nOf English translations there has been an unaccountable poverty. Only\none exists,[23] and this so exceptionally bad, so unlike the racy\ntranslations of the seventeenth century in general, so inaccurate,\nand so frequently unintelligible, that it is not impossible it may\nhave done something towards giving the English public a distaste for\nthe book itself. That the present translation also might be improved,\nwe know; that many men were fitter for the task, on the score of\nscholarship, we are very sensible; but that any one would have executed\nit with intenser affection and veneration for the author, we are not\nprepared to admit. A few notes have been added where it appeared to be\nnecessary. Some are original, some from the Benedictine Augustine, and\nthe rest from the elaborate commentary of Vives.[24]\n\n                                                   THE EDITOR.\n\nGLASGOW, 1871.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] A.D. 410.\n\n[2] _Retractations_, ii. 43.\n\n[3] _Letters_ 132-8.\n\n[4] See some admirable remarks on this subject in the useful work of\nBeugnot, _Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme_, ii. 83 et sqq.\n\n[5] As Waterland (iv. 760) does call it, adding that it is \"his most\nlearned, most correct, and most elaborate work.\"\n\n[6] For proof, see the Benedictine Preface.\n\n[7] \"Hitherto the Apologies had been framed to meet particular\nexigencies: they were either brief and pregnant statements of the\nChristian doctrines; refutations of prevalent calumnies; invectives\nagainst the follies and crimes of Paganism; or confutations of\nanti-Christian works like those of Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian,\nclosely following their course of argument, and rarely expanding into\ngeneral and comprehensive views of the great conflict.\"--MILMAN,\n_History of Christianity_, iii. c. 10. We are not acquainted with any\nmore complete preface to the _City of God_ than is contained in the\ntwo or three pages which Milman has devoted to this subject.\n\n[8] See the interesting remarks of Lactantius, _Instit._ vii. 25.\n\n[9] \"H\u00e6ret vox et singultus intercipiunt verba dictantis. Capitur\nurbs qu\u00e6 totum cepit orbem.\"--JEROME, iv. 783.\n\n[10] See below, iv. 7.\n\n[11] This is well brought out by Merivale, _Conversion of the Roman\nEmpire_, p. 145, etc.\n\n[12] Ozanam, _History of Civilisation in the Fifth Century_ (Eng.\ntrans.), ii. 160.\n\n[13] Abstracts of the work at greater or less length are given by\nDupin, Bindemann, B\u00f6hringer, Poujoulat, Ozanam, and others.\n\n[14] His words are: \"Plus on examine la Cit\u00e9 de Dieu, plus on reste\nconvaincu que cet ouvrage d\u00fbt exercea tres-peu d'influence sur\nl'esprit des pa\u00efens\" (ii. 122); and this though he thinks one cannot\nbut be struck with the grandeur of the ideas it contains.\n\n[15] _History of Ecclesiastical Writers_, i. 406.\n\n[16] _Huetiana_, p. 24.\n\n[17] Flottes, _Etudes sur S. Augustin_ (Paris, 1861), pp. 154-6, one\nof the most accurate and interesting even of French monographs on\ntheological writers.\n\n[18] These editions will be found detailed in the second volume of\nSchoenemann's _Bibliotheca Pat._\n\n[19] His words (in Ep. vi.) are quite worth quoting: \"Cura rogo te,\nut excudantur aliquot centena exemplarium istius operis a reliquo\nAugustini corpore separata; nam multi erunt studiosi qui Augustinum\ntotum emere vel nollent, vel non poterunt, quia non egebunt, seu\nquia tantum pecuni\u00e6 non habebunt. Scio enim fere a deditis studiis\nistis elegantioribus pr\u00e6ter hoc Augustini opus nullum fere aliud legi\nejusdem autoris.\"\n\n[20] The fullest and fairest discussion of the very simple yet\nnever settled question of Augustine's learning will be found in\nNourrisson's _Philosophie de S. Augustin_, ii. 92-100.\n\n[21] Erasmi _Epistol\u00e6_ xx. 2.\n\n[22] A large part of it has been translated in Saisset's _Pantheism_\n(Clark, Edin.).\n\n[23] By J. H., published in 1610, and again in 1620, with Vives'\ncommentary.\n\n[24] As the letters of Vives are not in every library, we give his\ncomico-pathetic account of the result of his Augustinian labours on\nhis health: \"Ex quo Augustinum perfeci, nunquam valui ex sententia;\nproxim\u00e2 vero hebdomade et hac, fracto corpore cuncto, et nervis\nlassitudine quadam et debilitate dejectis, in caput decem turres\nincumbere mihi videntur incidendo pondere, ac mole intolerabili; isti\nsunt fructus studiorum, et merces pulcherrimi laboris; quid labor et\nbenefacta juvant?\"\n\n\n\n\n                           THE CITY OF GOD.\n\n\n\n\n                              BOOK FIRST.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  AUGUSTINE CENSURES THE PAGANS, WHO ATTRIBUTED THE CALAMITIES OF THE\n      WORLD, AND ESPECIALLY THE RECENT SACK OF ROME BY THE GOTHS, TO\n      THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AND ITS PROHIBITION OF THE WORSHIP OF\n      THE GODS. HE SPEAKS OF THE BLESSINGS AND ILLS OF LIFE, WHICH\n      THEN, AS ALWAYS, HAPPENED TO GOOD AND BAD MEN ALIKE. FINALLY,\n      HE REBUKES THE SHAMELESSNESS OF THOSE WHO CAST UP TO THE\n      CHRISTIANS THAT THEIR WOMEN HAD BEEN VIOLATED BY THE SOLDIERS.\n\n\n             PREFACE, EXPLAINING HIS DESIGN IN UNDERTAKING\n                              THIS WORK.\n\n\nThe glorious city of God is my theme in this work, which you, my\ndearest son Marcellinus,[25] suggested, and which is due to you by\nmy promise. I have undertaken its defence against those who prefer\ntheir own gods to the Founder of this city,--a city surpassingly\nglorious, whether we view it as it still lives by faith in this\nfleeting course of time, and sojourns as a stranger in the midst\nof the ungodly, or as it shall dwell in the fixed stability of its\neternal seat, which it now with patience waits for, expecting until\n\"righteousness shall return unto judgment,\"[26] and it obtain, by\nvirtue of its excellence, final victory and perfect peace. A great\nwork this, and an arduous; but God is my helper. For I am aware what\nability is requisite to persuade the proud how great is the virtue\nof humility, which raises us, not by a quite human arrogance, but\nby a divine grace, above all earthly dignities that totter on this\nshifting scene. For the King and Founder of this city of which we\nspeak, has in Scripture uttered to His people a dictum of the divine\nlaw in these words: \"God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto\nthe humble.\"[27] But this, which is God's prerogative, the inflated\nambition of a proud spirit also affects, and dearly loves that this\nbe numbered among its attributes, to\n\n          \"Show pity to the humbled soul,\n           And crush the sons of pride.\"[28]\n\nAnd therefore, as the plan of this work we have undertaken requires,\nand as occasion offers, we must speak also of the earthly city,\nwhich, though it be mistress of the nations, is itself ruled by its\nlust of rule.\n\n\n 1. _Of the adversaries of the name of Christ, whom the barbarians for\n           Christ's sake spared when they stormed the city._\n\nFor to this earthly city belong the enemies against whom I have to\ndefend the city of God. Many of them, indeed, being reclaimed from\ntheir ungodly error, have become sufficiently creditable citizens\nof this city; but many are so inflamed with hatred against it, and\nare so ungrateful to its Redeemer for His signal benefits, as to\nforget that they would now be unable to utter a single word to its\nprejudice, had they not found in its sacred places, as they fled from\nthe enemy's steel, that life in which they now boast themselves. Are\nnot those very Romans, who were spared by the barbarians through\ntheir respect for Christ, become enemies to the name of Christ? The\nreliquaries of the martyrs and the churches of the apostles bear\nwitness to this; for in the sack of the city they were open sanctuary\nfor all who fled to them, whether Christian or Pagan. To their very\nthreshold the bloodthirsty enemy raged; there his murderous fury\nowned a limit. Thither did such of the enemy as had any pity convey\nthose to whom they had given quarter, lest any less mercifully\ndisposed might fall upon them. And, indeed, when even those murderers\nwho everywhere else showed themselves pitiless came to these spots\nwhere that was forbidden which the licence of war permitted in every\nother place, their furious rage for slaughter was bridled, and their\neagerness to take prisoners was quenched. Thus escaped multitudes\nwho now reproach the Christian religion, and impute to Christ the\nills that have befallen their city; but the preservation of their own\nlife--a boon which they owe to the respect entertained for Christ\nby the barbarians--they attribute not to our Christ, but to their\nown good luck. They ought rather, had they any right perceptions, to\nattribute the severities and hardships inflicted by their enemies, to\nthat divine providence which is wont to reform the depraved manners\nof men by chastisement, and which exercises with similar afflictions\nthe righteous and praiseworthy,--either translating them, when they\nhave passed through the trial, to a better world, or detaining them\nstill on earth for ulterior purposes. And they ought to attribute\nit to the spirit of these Christian times, that, contrary to the\ncustom of war, these bloodthirsty barbarians spared them, and\nspared them for Christ's sake, whether this mercy was actually\nshown in promiscuous places, or in those places specially dedicated\nto Christ's name, and of which the very largest were selected as\nsanctuaries, that full scope might thus be given to the expansive\ncompassion which desired that a large multitude might find shelter\nthere. Therefore ought they to give God thanks, and with sincere\nconfession flee for refuge to His name, that so they may escape\nthe punishment of eternal fire--they who with lying lips took upon\nthem this name, that they might escape the punishment of present\ndestruction. For of those whom you see insolently and shamelessly\ninsulting the servants of Christ, there are numbers who would not\nhave escaped that destruction and slaughter had they not pretended\nthat they themselves were Christ's servants. Yet now, in ungrateful\npride and most impious madness, and at the risk of being punished in\neverlasting darkness, they perversely oppose that name under which\nthey fraudulently protected themselves for the sake of enjoying the\nlight of this brief life.\n\n\n  2. _That it is quite contrary to the usage of war, that the victors\n       should spare the vanquished for the sake of their gods._\n\nThere are histories of numberless wars, both before the building of\nRome and since its rise and the extension of its dominion: let these\nbe read, and let one instance be cited in which, when a city had been\ntaken by foreigners, the victors spared those who were found to have\nfled for sanctuary to the temples of their gods;[29] or one instance\nin which a barbarian general gave orders that none should be put to\nthe sword who had been found in this or that temple. Did not \u00c6neas see\n\n                 \"Dying Priam at the shrine,\n          Staining the hearth he made divine?\"[30]\n\nDid not Diomede and Ulysses\n\n          \"Drag with red hands, the sentry slain,\n           Her fateful image from your fane,\n           Her chaste locks touch, and stain with gore\n           The virgin coronal she wore?\"[31]\n\nNeither is that true which follows, that\n\n          \"Thenceforth the tide of fortune changed,\n           And Greece grew weak.\"[32]\n\nFor after this they conquered and destroyed Troy with fire and sword;\nafter this they beheaded Priam as he fled to the altars. Neither did\nTroy perish because it lost Minerva. For what had Minerva herself\nfirst lost, that she should perish? Her guards perhaps? No doubt;\njust her guards. For as soon as they were slain, she could be stolen.\nIt was not, in fact, the men who were preserved by the image, but the\nimage by the men. How, then, was she invoked to defend the city and\nthe citizens, she who could not defend her own defenders?\n\n\n  3. _That the Romans did not show their usual sagacity when they\n      trusted that they would be benefited by the gods who had been\n      unable to defend Troy._\n\nAnd these be the gods to whose protecting care the Romans were\ndelighted to entrust their city! O too, too piteous mistake! And\nthey are enraged at us when we speak thus about their gods, though,\nso far from being enraged at their own writers, they part with money\nto learn what they say; and, indeed, the very teachers of these\nauthors are reckoned worthy of a salary from the public purse, and of\nother honours. There is Virgil, who is read by boys, in order that\nthis great poet, this most famous and approved of all poets, may\nimpregnate their virgin minds, and may not readily be forgotten by\nthem, according to that saying of Horace,\n\n          \"The fresh cask long keeps its first tang.\"[33]\n\nWell, in this Virgil, I say, Juno is introduced as hostile to the\nTrojans, and stirring up \u00c6olus, the king of the winds, against them\nin the words,\n\n          \"A race I hate now ploughs the sea,\n           Transporting Troy to Italy,\n           And home-gods conquered. \"[34]...\n\nAnd ought prudent men to have entrusted the defence of Rome to these\nconquered gods? But it will be said, this was only the saying of\nJuno, who, like an angry woman, did not know what she was saying.\nWhat, then, says \u00c6neas himself,--\u00c6neas who is so often designated\n\"pious?\" Does he not say,\n\n          \"Lo! Panthus, 'scaped from death by flight,\n           Priest of Apollo on the height,\n           His conquered gods with trembling hands\n           He bears, and shelter swift demands?\"[35]\n\nIs it not clear that the gods (whom he does not scruple to call\n\"conquered\") were rather entrusted to \u00c6neas than he to them, when it\nis said to him,\n\n          \"The gods of her domestic shrines\n           Your country to your care consigns?\"[36]\n\nIf, then, Virgil says that the gods were such as these, and were\nconquered, and that when conquered they could not escape except under\nthe protection of a man, what madness is it to suppose that Rome had\nbeen wisely entrusted to these guardians, and could not have been\ntaken unless it had lost them! Indeed, to worship conquered gods\nas protectors and champions, what is this but to worship, not good\ndivinities, but evil omens?[37] Would it not be wiser to believe,\nnot that Rome would never have fallen into so great a calamity had\nnot they first perished, but rather that they would have perished\nlong since had not Rome preserved them as long as she could? For who\ndoes not see, when he thinks of it, what a foolish assumption it is\nthat they could not be vanquished under vanquished defenders, and\nthat they only perished because they had lost their guardian gods,\nwhen, indeed, the only cause of their perishing was that they chose\nfor their protectors gods condemned to perish? The poets, therefore,\nwhen they composed and sang these things about the conquered gods,\nhad no intention to invent falsehoods, but uttered, as honest men,\nwhat the truth extorted from them. This, however, will be carefully\nand copiously discussed in another and more fitting place. Meanwhile\nI will briefly, and to the best of my ability, explain what I meant\nto say about these ungrateful men who blasphemously impute to Christ\nthe calamities which they deservedly suffer in consequence of their\nown wicked ways, while that which is for Christ's sake spared them\nin spite of their wickedness they do not even take the trouble to\nnotice; and in their mad and blasphemous insolence, they use against\nHis name those very lips wherewith they falsely claimed that same\nname that their lives might be spared. In the places consecrated\nto Christ, where for His sake no enemy would injure them, they\nrestrained their tongues that they might be safe and protected; but\nno sooner do they emerge from these sanctuaries, than they unbridle\nthese tongues to hurl against Him curses full of hate.\n\n\n  4. _Of the asylum of Juno in Troy, which saved no one from the\n      Greeks; and of the churches of the apostles, which protected\n      from the barbarians all who fled to them._\n\nTroy itself, the mother of the Roman people, was not able, as I have\nsaid, to protect its own citizens in the sacred places of their gods\nfrom the fire and sword of the Greeks, though the Greeks worshipped\nthe same gods. Not only so, but\n\n                   \"Ph\u0153nix and Ulysses fell\n          In the void courts by Juno's cell\n            Were set the spoil to keep;\n          Snatched from the burning shrines away,\n          There Ilium's mighty treasure lay,\n          Rich altars, bowls of massy gold,\n          And captive raiment, rudely rolled\n            In one promiscuous heap;\n          While boys and matrons, wild with fear,\n          In long array were standing near.\"[38]\n\nIn other words, the place consecrated to so great a goddess was\nchosen, not that from it none might be led out a captive, but that in\nit all the captives might be immured. Compare now this \"asylum\"--the\nasylum not of an ordinary god, not of one of the rank and file\nof gods, but of Jove's own sister and wife, the queen of all the\ngods--with the churches built in memory of the apostles. Into it were\ncollected the spoils rescued from the blazing temples and snatched\nfrom the gods, not that they might be restored to the vanquished, but\ndivided among the victors; while into these was carried back, with\nthe most religious observance and respect, everything which belonged\nto them, even though found elsewhere. There liberty was lost; here\npreserved. There bondage was strict; here strictly excluded. Into\nthat temple men were driven to become the chattels of their enemies,\nnow lording it over them; into these churches men were led by\ntheir relenting foes, that they might be at liberty. In fine, the\ngentle[39] Greeks appropriated that temple of Juno to the purposes\nof their own avarice and pride; while these churches of Christ were\nchosen even by the savage barbarians as the fit scenes for humility\nand mercy. But perhaps, after all, the Greeks did in that victory\nof theirs spare the temples of those gods whom they worshipped in\ncommon with the Trojans, and did not dare to put to the sword or\nmake captive the wretched and vanquished Trojans who fled thither;\nand perhaps Virgil, in the manner of poets, has depicted what never\nreally happened? But there is no question that he depicted the usual\ncustom of an enemy when sacking a city.\n\n\n 5. _C\u00e6sar's statement regarding the universal custom of an enemy when\n                           sacking a city._\n\nEven C\u00e6sar himself gives us positive testimony regarding this custom;\nfor, in his deliverance in the senate about the conspirators, he\nsays (as Sallust, a historian of distinguished veracity, writes[40])\n\"that virgins and boys are violated, children torn from the embrace\nof their parents, matrons subjected to whatever should be the\npleasure of the conquerors, temples and houses plundered, slaughter\nand burning rife; in fine, all things filled with arms, corpses,\nblood, and wailing.\" If he had not mentioned temples here, we might\nsuppose that enemies were in the habit of sparing the dwellings of\nthe gods. And the Roman temples were in danger of these disasters,\nnot from foreign foes, but from Catiline and his associates, the most\nnoble senators and citizens of Rome. But these, it may be said, were\nabandoned men, and the parricides of their fatherland.\n\n\n    6. _That not even the Romans, when they took cities, spared the\n                     conquered in their temples._\n\nWhy, then, need our argument take note of the many nations who have\nwaged wars with one another, and have nowhere spared the conquered\nin the temples of their gods? Let us look at the practice of the\nRomans themselves: let us, I say, recall and review the Romans,\nwhose chief praise it has been \"to spare the vanquished and subdue\nthe proud,\" and that they preferred \"rather to forgive than to\nrevenge an injury;\"[41] and among so many and great cities which\nthey have stormed, taken, and overthrown for the extension of their\ndominion, let us be told what temples they were accustomed to exempt,\nso that whoever took refuge in them was free. Or have they really\ndone this, and has the fact been suppressed by the historians of\nthese events? Is it to be believed, that men who sought out with\nthe greatest eagerness points they could praise, would omit those\nwhich, in their own estimation, are the most signal proofs of piety?\nMarcus Marcellus, a distinguished Roman, who took Syracuse, a most\nsplendidly adorned city, is reported to have bewailed its coming\nruin, and to have shed his own tears over it before he spilt its\nblood. He took steps also to preserve the chastity even of his enemy.\nFor before he gave orders for the storming of the city, he issued\nan edict forbidding the violation of any free person. Yet the city\nwas sacked according to the custom of war; nor do we anywhere read,\nthat even by so chaste and gentle a commander orders were given that\nno one should be injured who had fled to this or that temple. And\nthis certainly would by no means have been omitted, when neither\nhis weeping nor his edict preservative of chastity could be passed\nin silence. Fabius, the conqueror of the city of Tarentum, is\npraised for abstaining from making booty of the images. For when his\nsecretary proposed the question to him, what he wished done with the\nstatues of the gods, which had been taken in large numbers, he veiled\nhis moderation under a joke. For he asked of what sort they were;\nand when they reported to him that there were not only many large\nimages, but some of them armed, \"Oh,\" says he, \"let us leave with\nthe Tarentines their angry gods.\" Seeing, then, that the writers of\nRoman history could not pass in silence, neither the weeping of the\none general nor the laughing of the other, neither the chaste pity of\nthe one nor the facetious moderation of the other, on what occasion\nwould it be omitted, if, for the honour of any of their enemy's gods,\nthey had shown this particular form of leniency, that in any temple\nslaughter or captivity was prohibited?\n\n\n  7. _That the cruelties which occurred in the sack of Rome were in\n      accordance with the custom of war, whereas the acts of clemency\n      resulted from the influence of Christ's name._\n\nAll the spoiling, then, which Rome was exposed to in the recent\ncalamity--all the slaughter, plundering, burning, and misery--was\nthe result of the custom of war. But what was novel, was that savage\nbarbarians showed themselves in so gentle a guise, that the largest\nchurches were chosen and set apart for the purpose of being filled with\nthe people to whom quarter was given, and that in them none were slain,\nfrom them none forcibly dragged; that into them many were led by their\nrelenting enemies to be set at liberty, and that from them none were\nled into slavery by merciless foes. Whoever does not see that this is\nto be attributed to the name of Christ, and to the Christian temper, is\nblind; whoever sees this, and gives no praise, is ungrateful; whoever\nhinders any one from praising it, is mad. Far be it from any prudent\nman to impute this clemency to the barbarians. Their fierce and bloody\nminds were awed, and bridled, and marvellously tempered by Him who so\nlong before said by His prophet, \"I will visit their transgression\nwith the rod, and their iniquities with stripes; nevertheless my\nloving-kindness will I not utterly take from them.\"[42]\n\n\n 8. _Of the advantages and disadvantages which often indiscriminately\n                    accrue to good and wicked men._\n\nWill some one say, Why, then, was this divine compassion extended\neven to the ungodly and ungrateful? Why, but because it was the mercy\nof Him who daily \"maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good,\nand sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.\"[43] For though some\nof these men, taking thought of this, repent of their wickedness\nand reform, some, as the apostle says, \"despising the riches of His\ngoodness and long-suffering, after their hardness and impenitent\nheart, treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath\nand revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to\nevery man according to his deeds:\"[44] nevertheless does the patience\nof God still invite the wicked to repentance, even as the scourge of\nGod educates the good to patience. And so, too, does the mercy of God\nembrace the good that it may cherish them, as the severity of God\narrests the wicked to punish them. To the divine providence it has\nseemed good to prepare in the world to come for the righteous good\nthings, which the unrighteous shall not enjoy; and for the wicked\nevil things, by which the good shall not be tormented. But as for the\ngood things of this life, and its ills, God has willed that these\nshould be common to both; that we might not too eagerly covet the\nthings which wicked men are seen equally to enjoy, nor shrink with an\nunseemly fear from the ills which even good men often suffer.\n\nThere is, too, a very great difference in the purpose served both\nby those events which we call adverse and those called prosperous.\nFor the good man is neither uplifted with the good things of\ntime, nor broken by its ills; but the wicked man, because he is\ncorrupted by this world's happiness, feels himself punished by its\nunhappiness.[45] Yet often, even in the present distribution of\ntemporal things, does God plainly evince His own interference. For if\nevery sin were now visited with manifest punishment, nothing would\nseem to be reserved for the final judgment; on the other hand, if no\nsin received now a plainly divine punishment, it would be concluded\nthat there is no divine providence at all. And so of the good things\nof this life: if God did not by a very visible liberality confer\nthese on some of those persons who ask for them, we should say that\nthese good things were not at His disposal; and if He gave them\nto all who sought them, we should suppose that such were the only\nrewards of His service; and such a service would make us not godly,\nbut greedy rather, and covetous. Wherefore, though good and bad men\nsuffer alike, we must not suppose that there is no difference between\nthe men themselves, because there is no difference in what they both\nsuffer. For even in the likeness of the sufferings, there remains an\nunlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish,\nvirtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the same fire causes\ngold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail\nthe straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the\nlees are not mixed with the oil, though squeezed out of the vat by\nthe same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges,\nclarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked. And\nthus it is that in the same affliction the wicked detest God and\nblaspheme, while the good pray and praise. So material a difference\ndoes it make, not what ills are suffered, but what kind of man\nsuffers them. For, stirred up with the same movement, mud exhales a\nhorrible stench, and ointment emits a fragrant odour.\n\n\n    9. _Of the reasons for administering correction to bad and good\n                              together._\n\nWhat, then, have the Christians suffered in that calamitous period,\nwhich would not profit every one who duly and faithfully considered\nthe following circumstances? First of all, they must humbly consider\nthose very sins which have provoked God to fill the world with such\nterrible disasters; for although they be far from the excesses of\nwicked, immoral, and ungodly men, yet they do not judge themselves so\nclean removed from all faults as to be too good to suffer for these\neven temporal ills. For every man, however laudably he lives, yet\nyields in some points to the lust of the flesh. Though he do not fall\ninto gross enormity of wickedness, and abandoned viciousness, and\nabominable profanity, yet he slips into some sins, either rarely or\nso much the more frequently as the sins seem of less account. But not\nto mention this, where can we readily find a man who holds in fit and\njust estimation those persons on account of whose revolting pride,\nluxury, and avarice, and cursed iniquities and impiety, God now smites\nthe earth as His predictions threatened? Where is the man who lives\nwith them in the style in which it becomes us to live with them? For\noften we wickedly blind ourselves to the occasions of teaching and\nadmonishing them, sometimes even of reprimanding and chiding them,\neither because we shrink from the labour or are ashamed to offend them,\nor because we fear to lose good friendships, lest this should stand in\nthe way of our advancement, or injure us in some worldly matter, which\neither our covetous disposition desires to obtain, or our weakness\nshrinks from losing. So that, although the conduct of wicked men is\ndistasteful to the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into\nthat damnation which in the next life awaits such persons, yet, because\nthey spare their damnable sins through fear, therefore, even though\ntheir own sins be slight and venial, they are justly scourged with the\nwicked in this world, though in eternity they quite escape punishment.\nJustly, when God afflicts them in common with the wicked, do they find\nthis life bitter, through love of whose sweetness they declined to be\nbitter to these sinners.\n\nIf any one forbears to reprove and find fault with those who are\ndoing wrong, because he seeks a more seasonable opportunity, or\nbecause he fears they may be made worse by his rebuke, or that other\nweak persons may be disheartened from endeavouring to lead a good and\npious life, and may be driven from the faith; this man's omission\nseems to be occasioned not by covetousness, but by a charitable\nconsideration. But what is blameworthy is, that they who themselves\nrevolt from the conduct of the wicked, and live in quite another\nfashion, yet spare those faults in other men which they ought to\nreprehend and wean them from; and spare them because they fear to\ngive offence, lest they should injure their interests in those things\nwhich good men may innocently and legitimately use,--though they use\nthem more greedily than becomes persons who are strangers in this\nworld, and profess the hope of a heavenly country. For not only the\nweaker brethren, who enjoy married life, and have children (or desire\nto have them), and own houses and establishments, whom the apostle\naddresses in the churches, warning and instructing them how they\nshould live, both the wives with their husbands, and the husbands\nwith their wives, the children with their parents, and parents with\ntheir children, and servants with their masters, and masters with\ntheir servants,--not only do these weaker brethren gladly obtain\nand grudgingly lose many earthly and temporal things on account of\nwhich they dare not offend men whose polluted and wicked life greatly\ndispleases them; but those also who live at a higher level, who are\nnot entangled in the meshes of married life, but use meagre food and\nraiment, do often take thought of their own safety and good name,\nand abstain from finding fault with the wicked, because they fear\ntheir wiles and violence. And although they do not fear them to such\nan extent as to be drawn to the commission of like iniquities, nay,\nnot by any threats or violence soever; yet those very deeds which\nthey refuse to share in the commission of, they often decline to find\nfault with, when possibly they might by finding fault prevent their\ncommission. They abstain from interference, because they fear that,\nif it fail of good effect, their own safety or reputation may be\ndamaged or destroyed; not because they see that their preservation\nand good name are needful, that they may be able to influence those\nwho need their instruction, but rather because they weakly relish\nthe flattery and respect of men, and fear the judgments of the\npeople, and the pain or death of the body; that is to say, their\nnon-intervention is the result of selfishness, and not of love.\n\nAccordingly, this seems to me to be one principal reason why the good\nare chastised along with the wicked, when God is pleased to visit\nwith temporal punishments the profligate manners of a community.\nThey are punished together, not because they have spent an equally\ncorrupt life, but because the good as well as the wicked, though\nnot equally with them, love this present life; while they ought to\nhold it cheap, that the wicked, being admonished and reformed by\ntheir example, might lay hold of life eternal. And if they will not\nbe the companions of the good in seeking life everlasting, they\nshould be loved as enemies, and be dealt with patiently. For so long\nas they live, it remains uncertain whether they may not come to a\nbetter mind. These selfish persons have more cause to fear than\nthose to whom it was said through the prophet, \"He is taken away\nin his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's\nhand.\"[46] For watchmen or overseers of the people are appointed\nin churches, that they may unsparingly rebuke sin. Nor is that man\nguiltless of the sin we speak of, who, though he be not a watchman,\nyet sees in the conduct of those with whom the relationships of this\nlife bring him into contact, many things that should be blamed,\nand yet overlooks them, fearing to give offence, and lose such\nworldly blessings as may legitimately be desired, but which he too\neagerly grasps. Then, lastly, there is another reason why the good\nare afflicted with temporal calamities--the reason which Job's\ncase exemplifies: that the human spirit may be proved, and that it\nmay be manifested with what fortitude of pious trust, and with how\nunmercenary a love, it cleaves to God.[47]\n\n\n     10. _That the saints lose nothing in losing temporal goods._\n\nThese are the considerations which one must keep in view, that he may\nanswer the question whether any evil happens to the faithful and godly\nwhich cannot be turned to profit. Or shall we say that the question is\nneedless, and that the apostle is vapouring when he says, \"We know that\nall things work together for good to them that love God?\"[48]\n\nThey lost all they had. Their faith? Their godliness? The possessions\nof the hidden man of the heart, which in the sight of God are of great\nprice?[49] Did they lose these? For these are the wealth of Christians,\nto whom the wealthy apostle said, \"Godliness with contentment is great\ngain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can\ncarry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith\ncontent. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare,\nand into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction\nand perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil; which,\nwhile some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced\nthemselves through with many sorrows.\"[50]\n\nThey, then, who lost their worldly all in the sack of Rome, if they\nowned their possessions as they had been taught by the apostle, who\nhimself was poor without, but rich within,--that is to say, if they\nused the world as not using it,--could say in the words of Job,\nheavily tried, but not overcome: \"Naked came I out of my mother's\nwomb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord\nhath taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so has it come to pass:\nblessed be the name of the Lord.\"[51] Like a good servant, Job\ncounted the will of his Lord his great possession, by obedience to\nwhich his soul was enriched; nor did it grieve him to lose, while\nyet living, those goods which he must shortly leave at his death.\nBut as to those feebler spirits who, though they cannot be said to\nprefer earthly possessions to Christ, do yet cleave to them with a\nsomewhat immoderate attachment, they have discovered by the pain\nof losing these things how much they were sinning in loving them.\nFor their grief is of their own making; in the words of the apostle\nquoted above, \"they have pierced themselves through with many\nsorrows.\" For it was well that they who had so long despised these\nverbal admonitions should receive the teaching of experience. For\nwhen the apostle says, \"They that will be rich fall into temptation,\"\nand so on, what he blames in riches is not the possession of them,\nbut the desire of them. For elsewhere he says, \"Charge them that\nare rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in\nuncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all\nthings to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works,\nready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for\nthemselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may\nlay hold on eternal life.\"[52] They who were making such a use of\ntheir property have been consoled for light losses by great gains,\nand have had more pleasure in those possessions which they have\nsecurely laid past, by freely giving them away, than grief in those\nwhich they entirely lost by an anxious and selfish hoarding of them.\nFor nothing could perish on earth save what they would be ashamed to\ncarry away from earth. Our Lord's injunction runs, \"Lay not up for\nyourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,\nand where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves\ntreasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and\nwhere thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure\nis, there will your heart be also.\"[53] And they who have listened\nto this injunction have proved in the time of tribulation how well\nthey were advised in not despising this most trustworthy teacher,\nand most faithful and mighty guardian of their treasure. For if\nmany were glad that their treasure was stored in places which the\nenemy chanced not to light upon, how much better founded was the\njoy of those who, by the counsel of their God, had fled with their\ntreasure to a citadel which no enemy can possibly reach! Thus our\nPaulinus, bishop of Nola,[54] who voluntarily abandoned vast wealth\nand became quite poor, though abundantly rich in holiness, when the\nbarbarians sacked Nola, and took him prisoner, used silently to pray,\nas he afterwards told me, \"O Lord, let me not be troubled for gold\nand silver, for where all my treasure is Thou knowest.\" For all his\ntreasure was where he had been taught to hide and store it by Him who\nhad also foretold that these calamities would happen in the world.\nConsequently those persons who obeyed their Lord when He warned them\nwhere and how to lay up treasure, did not lose even their earthly\npossessions in the invasion of the barbarians; while those who are\nnow repenting that they did not obey Him have learnt the right use\nof earthly goods, if not by the wisdom which would have prevented\ntheir loss, at least by the experience which follows it.\n\nBut some good and Christian men have been put to the torture, that\nthey might be forced to deliver up their goods to the enemy. They\ncould indeed neither deliver nor lose that good which made themselves\ngood. If, however, they preferred torture to the surrender of the\nmammon of iniquity, then I say they were not good men. Rather they\nshould have been reminded that, if they suffered so severely for\nthe sake of money, they should endure all torment, if need be, for\nChrist's sake; that they might be taught to love Him rather who\nenriches with eternal felicity all who suffer for Him, and not\nsilver and gold, for which it was pitiable to suffer, whether they\npreserved it by telling a lie, or lost it by telling the truth. For\nunder these tortures no one lost Christ by confessing Him, no one\npreserved wealth save by denying its existence. So that possibly\nthe torture which taught them that they should set their affections\non a possession they could not lose, was more useful than those\npossessions which, without any useful fruit at all, disquieted\nand tormented their anxious owners. But then we are reminded that\nsome were tortured who had no wealth to surrender, but who were\nnot believed when they said so. These too, however, had perhaps\nsome craving for wealth, and were not willingly poor with a holy\nresignation; and to such it had to be made plain, that not the actual\npossession alone, but also the desire of wealth, deserved such\nexcruciating pains. And even if they were destitute of any hidden\nstores of gold and silver, because they were living in hopes of a\nbetter life,--I know not indeed if any such person was tortured on\nthe supposition that he had wealth; but if so, then certainly in\nconfessing, when put to the question, a holy poverty, he confessed\nChrist. And though it was scarcely to be expected that the barbarians\nshould believe him, yet no confessor of a holy poverty could be\ntortured without receiving a heavenly reward.\n\nAgain, they say that the long famine laid many a Christian low. But\nthis, too, the faithful turned to good uses by a pious endurance of\nit. For those whom famine killed outright it rescued from the ills\nof this life, as a kindly disease would have done; and those who were\nonly hunger-bitten were taught to live more sparingly, and inured to\nlonger fasts.\n\n\n 11. _Of the end of this life, whether it is material that it be long\n                               delayed._\n\nBut, it is added, many Christians were slaughtered, and were put to\ndeath in a hideous variety of cruel ways. Well, if this be hard to\nbear, it is assuredly the common lot of all who are born into this\nlife. Of this at least I am certain, that no one has ever died who\nwas not destined to die some time. Now the end of life puts the\nlongest life on a par with the shortest. For of two things which\nhave alike ceased to be, the one is not better, the other worse--the\none greater, the other less.[55] And of what consequence is it what\nkind of death puts an end to life, since he who has died once is\nnot forced to go through the same ordeal a second time? And as in\nthe daily casualties of life every man is, as it were, threatened\nwith numberless deaths, so long as it remains uncertain which of\nthem is his fate, I would ask whether it is not better to suffer\none and die, than to live in fear of all? I am not unaware of the\npoor-spirited fear which prompts us to choose rather to live long in\nfear of so many deaths, than to die once and so escape them all; but\nthe weak and cowardly shrinking of the flesh is one thing, and the\nwell-considered and reasonable persuasion of the soul quite another.\nThat death is not to be judged an evil which is the end of a good\nlife; for death becomes evil only by the retribution which follows\nit. They, then, who are destined to die, need not be careful to\ninquire what death they are to die, but into what place death will\nusher them. And since Christians are well aware that the death of the\ngodly pauper whose sores the dogs licked was far better than of the\nwicked rich man who lay in purple and fine linen, what harm could\nthese terrific deaths do to the dead who had lived well?\n\n\n  12. _Of the burial of the dead: that the denial of it to Christians\n                       does them no injury._[56]\n\nFurther still, we are reminded that in such a carnage as then\noccurred, the bodies could not even be buried. But godly confidence\nis not appalled by so ill-omened a circumstance; for the faithful\nbear in mind that assurance has been given that not a hair of their\nhead shall perish, and that, therefore, though they even be devoured\nby beasts, their blessed resurrection will not hereby be hindered.\nThe Truth would nowise have said, \"Fear not them which kill the body,\nbut are not able to kill the soul,\"[57] if anything whatever that\nan enemy could do to the body of the slain could be detrimental to\nthe future life. Or will some one perhaps take so absurd a position\nas to contend that those who kill the body are not to be feared\nbefore death, and lest they kill the body, but after death, lest they\ndeprive it of burial? If this be so, then that is false which Christ\nsays, \"Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have\nno more that they can do;\"[58] for it seems they can do great injury\nto the dead body. Far be it from us to suppose that the Truth can\nbe thus false. They who kill the body are said \"to do something,\"\nbecause the death-blow is felt, the body still having sensation; but\nafter that, they have no more that they can do, for in the slain\nbody there is no sensation. And so there are indeed many bodies\nof Christians lying unburied; but no one has separated them from\nheaven, nor from that earth which is all filled with the presence\nof Him who knows whence He will raise again what He created. It is\nsaid, indeed, in the Psalm: \"The dead bodies of Thy servants have\nthey given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of Thy\nsaints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like\nwater round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them.\"[59]\nBut this was said rather to exhibit the cruelty of those who did\nthese things, than the misery of those who suffered them. To the eyes\nof men this appears a harsh and doleful lot, yet \"precious in the\nsight of the Lord is the death of His saints.\"[60] Wherefore all\nthese last offices and ceremonies that concern the dead, the careful\nfuneral arrangements, and the equipment of the tomb, and the pomp of\nobsequies, are rather the solace of the living than the comfort of\nthe dead. If a costly burial does any good to a wicked man, a squalid\nburial, or none at all, may harm the godly. His crowd of domestics\nfurnished the purple-clad Dives with a funeral gorgeous in the eye of\nman; but in the sight of God that was a more sumptuous funeral which\nthe ulcerous pauper received at the hands of the angels, who did not\ncarry him out to a marble tomb, but bore him aloft to Abraham's bosom.\n\nThe men against whom I have undertaken to defend the city of God\nlaugh at all this. But even their own philosophers[61] have despised\na careful burial; and often whole armies have fought and fallen for\ntheir earthly country without caring to inquire whether they would\nbe left exposed on the field of battle, or become the food of wild\nbeasts. Of this noble disregard of sepulture poetry has well said:\n\"He who has no tomb has the sky for his vault.\"[62] How much less\nought they to insult over the unburied bodies of Christians, to whom\nit has been promised that the flesh itself shall be restored, and\nthe body formed anew, all the members of it being gathered not only\nfrom the earth, but from the most secret recesses of any other of the\nelements in which the dead bodies of men have lain hid!\n\n\n          13. _Reasons for burying the bodies of the saints._\n\nNevertheless the bodies of the dead are not on this account to be\ndespised and left unburied; least of all the bodies of the righteous\nand faithful, which have been used by the Holy Ghost as His organs\nand instruments for all good works. For if the dress of a father,\nor his ring, or anything he wore, be precious to his children, in\nproportion to the love they bore him, with how much more reason\nought we to care for the bodies of those we love, which they wore\nfar more closely and intimately than any clothing! For the body\nis not an extraneous ornament or aid, but a part of man's very\nnature. And therefore to the righteous of ancient times the last\noffices were piously rendered, and sepulchres provided for them, and\nobsequies celebrated;[63] and they themselves, while yet alive, gave\ncommandment to their sons about the burial, and, on occasion, even\nabout the removal of their bodies to some favourite place.[64] And\nTobit, according to the angel's testimony, is commended, and is said\nto have pleased God by burying the dead.[65] Our Lord Himself, too,\nthough He was to rise again the third day, applauds, and commends\nto our applause, the good work of the religious woman who poured\nprecious ointment over His limbs, and did it against His burial.[66]\nAnd the Gospel speaks with commendation of those who were careful to\ntake down His body from the cross, and wrap it lovingly in costly\ncerements, and see to its burial.[67] These instances certainly\ndo not prove that corpses have any feeling; but they show that\nGod's providence extends even to the bodies of the dead, and that\nsuch pious offices are pleasing to Him, as cherishing faith in the\nresurrection. And we may also draw from them this wholesome lesson,\nthat if God does not forget even any kind office which loving care\npays to the unconscious dead, much more does He reward the charity\nwe exercise towards the living. Other things, indeed, which the holy\npatriarchs said of the burial and removal of their bodies, they meant\nto be taken in a prophetic sense; but of these we need not here speak\nat large, what we have already said being sufficient. But if the want\nof those things which are necessary for the support of the living,\nas food and clothing, though painful and trying, does not break down\nthe fortitude and virtuous endurance of good men, nor eradicate piety\nfrom their souls, but rather renders it more fruitful, how much less\ncan the absence of the funeral, and of the other customary attentions\npaid to the dead, render those wretched who are already reposing in\nthe hidden abodes of the blessed! Consequently, though in the sack\nof Rome and of other towns the dead bodies of the Christians were\ndeprived of these last offices, this is neither the fault of the\nliving, for they could not render them; nor an infliction to the\ndead, for they cannot feel the loss.\n\n\n   14. _Of the captivity of the saints, and that divine consolation\n                      never failed them therein._\n\nBut, say they, many Christians were even led away captive. This\nindeed were a most pitiable fate, if they could be led away to any\nplace where they could not find their God. But for this calamity also\nsacred Scripture affords great consolation. The three youths[68] were\ncaptives; Daniel was a captive; so were other prophets: and God, the\ncomforter, did not fail them. And in like manner He has not failed\nHis own people in the power of a nation which, though barbarous, is\nyet human,--He who did not abandon the prophet[69] in the belly of\na monster. These things, indeed, are turned to ridicule rather than\ncredited by those with whom we are debating; though they believe\nwhat they read in their own books, that Arion of Methymna, the\nfamous lyrist,[70] when he was thrown overboard, was received on a\ndolphin's back and carried to land. But that story of ours about the\nprophet Jonah is far more incredible,--more incredible because more\nmarvellous, and more marvellous because a greater exhibition of power.\n\n\n  15. _Of Regulus, in whom we have an example of the voluntary\n      endurance of captivity for the sake of religion; which yet did\n      not profit him, though he was a worshipper of the gods._\n\nBut among their own famous men they have a very noble example of the\nvoluntary endurance of captivity in obedience to a religious scruple.\nMarcus Attilius Regulus, a Roman general, was a prisoner in the\nhands of the Carthaginians. But they, being more anxious to exchange\ntheir prisoners with the Romans than to keep them, sent Regulus as a\nspecial envoy with their own ambassadors to negotiate this exchange,\nbut bound him first with an oath, that if he failed to accomplish\ntheir wish, he would return to Carthage. He went, and persuaded the\nsenate to the opposite course, because he believed it was not for\nthe advantage of the Roman republic to make an exchange of prisoners.\nAfter he had thus exerted his influence, the Romans did not compel\nhim to return to the enemy; but what he had sworn he voluntarily\nperformed. But the Carthaginians put him to death with refined,\nelaborate, and horrible tortures. They shut him up in a narrow box,\nin which he was compelled to stand, and in which finely sharpened\nnails were fixed all round about him, so that he could not lean\nupon any part of it without intense pain; and so they killed him by\ndepriving him of sleep.[71] With justice, indeed, do they applaud the\nvirtue which rose superior to so frightful a fate. However, the gods\nhe swore by were those who are now supposed to avenge the prohibition\nof their worship, by inflicting these present calamities on the\nhuman race. But if these gods, who were worshipped specially in this\nbehalf, that they might confer happiness in this life, either willed\nor permitted these punishments to be inflicted on one who kept his\noath to them, what more cruel punishment could they in their anger\nhave inflicted on a perjured person? But why may I not draw from my\nreasoning a double inference? Regulus certainly had such reverence\nfor the gods, that for his oath's sake he would neither remain in\nhis own land, nor go elsewhere, but without hesitation returned\nto his bitterest enemies. If he thought that this course would be\nadvantageous with respect to this present life, he was certainly\nmuch deceived, for it brought his life to a frightful termination.\nBy his own example, in fact, he taught that the gods do not secure\nthe temporal happiness of their worshippers; since he himself, who\nwas devoted to their worship, was both conquered in battle and taken\nprisoner, and then, because he refused to act in violation of the\noath he had sworn by them, was tortured and put to death by a new,\nand hitherto unheard of, and all too horrible kind of punishment.\nAnd on the supposition that the worshippers of the gods are rewarded\nby felicity in the life to come, why, then, do they calumniate the\ninfluence of Christianity? why do they assert that this disaster has\novertaken the city because it has ceased to worship its gods, since,\nworship them as assiduously as it may, it may yet be as unfortunate\nas Regulus was? Or will some one carry so wonderful a blindness to\nthe extent of wildly attempting, in the face of the evident truth, to\ncontend that though one man might be unfortunate, though a worshipper\nof the gods, yet a whole city could not be so? That is to say, the\npower of their gods is better adapted to preserve multitudes than\nindividuals,--as if a multitude were not composed of individuals.\n\nBut if they say that M. Regulus, even while a prisoner and enduring\nthese bodily torments, might yet enjoy the blessedness of a virtuous\nsoul,[72] then let them recognise that true virtue by which a city\nalso may be blessed. For the blessedness of a community and of an\nindividual flow from the same source; for a community is nothing\nelse than a harmonious collection of individuals. So that I am not\nconcerned meantime to discuss what kind of virtue Regulus possessed:\nenough, that by his very noble example they are forced to own that\nthe gods are to be worshipped not for the sake of bodily comforts or\nexternal advantages; for he preferred to lose all such things rather\nthan offend the gods by whom he had sworn. But what can we make of\nmen who glory in having such a citizen, but dread having a city\nlike him? If they do not dread this, then let them acknowledge that\nsome such calamity as befell Regulus may also befall a community,\nthough they be worshipping their gods as diligently as he; and let\nthem no longer throw the blame of their misfortunes on Christianity.\nBut as our present concern is with those Christians who were taken\nprisoners, let those who take occasion from this calamity to revile\nour most wholesome religion in a fashion not less imprudent than\nimpudent, consider this and hold their peace; for if it was no\nreproach to their gods that a most punctilious worshipper of theirs\nshould, for the sake of keeping his oath to them, be deprived of his\nnative land without hope of finding another, and fall into the hands\nof his enemies, and be put to death by a long-drawn and exquisite\ntorture, much less ought the Christian name to be charged with the\ncaptivity of those who believe in its power, since they, in confident\nexpectation of a heavenly country, know that they are pilgrims even\nin their own homes.\n\n\n  16. _Of the violation of the consecrated and other Christian\n      virgins to which they were subjected in captivity, and to which\n      their own will gave no consent; and whether this contaminated\n      their souls._\n\nBut they fancy they bring a conclusive charge against Christianity,\nwhen they aggravate the horror of captivity by adding that not only\nwives and unmarried maidens, but even consecrated virgins, were\nviolated. But truly, with respect to this, it is not Christian faith,\nnor piety, nor even the virtue of chastity, which is hemmed into any\ndifficulty: the only difficulty is so to treat the subject as to\nsatisfy at once modesty and reason. And in discussing it we shall not\nbe so careful to reply to our accusers as to comfort our friends. Let\nthis, therefore, in the first place, be laid down as an unassailable\nposition, that the virtue which makes the life good has its throne\nin the soul, and thence rules the members of the body, which becomes\nholy in virtue of the holiness of the will; and that while the will\nremains firm and unshaken, nothing that another person does with the\nbody, or upon the body, is any fault of the person who suffers it,\nso long as he cannot escape it without sin. But as not only pain may\nbe inflicted, but lust gratified on the body of another, whenever\nanything of this latter kind takes place, shame invades even a\nthoroughly pure spirit from which modesty has not departed,--shame,\nlest that act which could not be suffered without some sensual\npleasure, should be believed to have been committed also with some\nassent of the will.\n\n\n  17. _Of suicide committed through fear of punishment or dishonour._\n\nAnd consequently, even if some of these virgins killed themselves\nto avoid such disgrace, who that has any human feeling would refuse\nto forgive them? And as for those who would not put an end to their\nlives, lest they might seem to escape the crime of another by a sin\nof their own, he who lays this to their charge as a great wickedness\nis himself not guiltless of the fault of folly. For if it is not\nlawful to take the law into our own hands, and slay even a guilty\nperson, whose death no public sentence has warranted, then certainly\nhe who kills himself is a homicide, and so much the guiltier of\nhis own death, as he was more innocent of that offence for which\nhe doomed himself to die. Do we justly execrate the deed of Judas,\nand does truth itself pronounce that by hanging himself he rather\naggravated than expiated the guilt of that most iniquitous betrayal,\nsince, by despairing of God's mercy in his sorrow that wrought death,\nhe left to himself no place for a healing penitence? How much more\nought he to abstain from laying violent hands on himself who has\ndone nothing worthy of such a punishment! For Judas, when he killed\nhimself, killed a wicked man; but he passed from this life chargeable\nnot only with the death of Christ, but with his own: for though he\nkilled himself on account of his crime, his killing himself was\nanother crime. Why, then, should a man who has done no ill do ill to\nhimself, and by killing himself kill the innocent to escape another's\nguilty act, and perpetrate upon himself a sin of his own, that the\nsin of another may not be perpetrated on him?\n\n\n    18. _Of the violence which may be done to the body by another's\n               lust, while the mind remains inviolate._\n\nBut is there a fear that even another's lust may pollute the\nviolated? It will not pollute, if it be another's: if it pollute,\nit is not another's, but is shared also by the polluted. But since\npurity is a virtue of the soul, and has for its companion virtue\nthe fortitude which will rather endure all ills than consent to\nevil; and since no one, however magnanimous and pure, has always\nthe disposal of his own body, but can control only the consent and\nrefusal of his will, what sane man can suppose that, if his body be\nseized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he\nthereby loses his purity? For if purity can be thus destroyed, then\nassuredly purity is no virtue of the soul; nor can it be numbered\namong those good things by which the life is made good, but among the\ngood things of the body, in the same category as strength, beauty,\nsound and unbroken health, and, in short, all such good things as may\nbe diminished without at all diminishing the goodness and rectitude\nof our life. But if purity be nothing better than these, why should\nthe body be perilled that it may be preserved? If, on the other hand,\nit belongs to the soul, then not even when the body is violated is it\nlost. Nay more, the virtue of holy continence, when it resists the\nuncleanness of carnal lust, sanctifies even the body, and therefore\nwhen this continence remains unsubdued, even the sanctity of the body\nis preserved, because the will to use it holily remains, and, so far\nas lies in the body itself, the power also.\n\nFor the sanctity of the body does not consist in the integrity of\nits members, nor in their exemption from all touch; for they are\nexposed to various accidents which do violence to and wound them,\nand the surgeons who administer relief often perform operations that\nsicken the spectator. A midwife, suppose, has (whether maliciously or\naccidentally, or through unskilfulness) destroyed the virginity of\nsome girl, while endeavouring to ascertain it: I suppose no one is so\nfoolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of\none organ, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity.\nAnd thus, so long as the soul keeps this firmness of purpose which\nsanctifies even the body, the violence done by another's lust makes\nno impression on this bodily sanctity, which is preserved intact by\none's own persistent continence. Suppose a virgin violates the oath\nshe has sworn to God, and goes to meet her seducer with the intention\nof yielding to him, shall we say that as she goes she is possessed\neven of bodily sanctity, when already she has lost and destroyed\nthat sanctity of soul which sanctifies the body? Far be it from us\nto so misapply words. Let us rather draw this conclusion, that while\nthe sanctity of the soul remains even when the body is violated,\nthe sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in like manner,\nthe sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the soul is\nviolated, though the body itself remain intact. And therefore a woman\nwho has been violated by the sin of another, and without any consent\nof her own, has no cause to put herself to death; much less has she\ncause to commit suicide in order to avoid such violation, for in\nthat case she commits certain homicide to prevent a crime which is\nuncertain as yet, and not her own.\n\n\n  19. _Of Lucretia, who put an end to her life because of the outrage\n                              done her._\n\nThis, then, is our position, and it seems sufficiently lucid. We\nmaintain that when a woman is violated while her soul admits no\nconsent to the iniquity, but remains inviolably chaste, the sin is\nnot hers, but his who violates her. But do they against whom we have\nto defend not only the souls, but the sacred bodies too of these\noutraged Christian captives,--do they, perhaps, dare to dispute\nour position? But all know how loudly they extol the purity of\nLucretia, that noble matron of ancient Rome. When King Tarquin's son\nhad violated her body, she made known the wickedness of this young\nprofligate to her husband Collatinus, and to Brutus her kinsman,\nmen of high rank and full of courage, and bound them by an oath to\navenge it. Then, heart-sick, and unable to bear the shame, she put an\nend to her life. What shall we call her? An adulteress, or chaste?\nThere is no question which she was. Not more happily than truly did\na declaimer say of this sad occurrence: \"Here was a marvel: there\nwere two, and only one committed adultery.\" Most forcibly and truly\nspoken. For this declaimer, seeing in the union of the two bodies\nthe foul lust of the one, and the chaste will of the other, and\ngiving heed not to the contact of the bodily members, but to the wide\ndiversity of their souls, says: \"There were two, but the adultery was\ncommitted only by one.\"\n\nBut how is it, that she who was no partner to the crime bears the\nheavier punishment of the two? For the adulterer was only banished\nalong with his father; she suffered the extreme penalty. If that was\nnot impurity by which she was unwillingly ravished, then this is not\njustice by which she, being chaste, is punished. To you I appeal,\nye laws and judges of Rome. Even after the perpetration of great\nenormities, you do not suffer the criminal to be slain untried. If,\nthen, one were to bring to your bar this case, and were to prove\nto you that a woman not only untried, but chaste and innocent,\nhad been killed, would you not visit the murderer with punishment\nproportionably severe? This crime was committed by Lucretia; that\nLucretia so celebrated and lauded slew the innocent, chaste, outraged\nLucretia. Pronounce sentence. But if you cannot, because there does\nnot compear any one whom you can punish, why do you extol with such\nunmeasured laudation her who slew an innocent and chaste woman?\nAssuredly you will find it impossible to defend her before the judges\nof the realms below, if they be such as your poets are fond of\nrepresenting them; for she is among those\n\n          \"Who guiltless sent themselves to doom,\n           And all for loathing of the day,\n           In madness threw their lives away.\"\n\nAnd if she with the others wishes to return,\n\n          \"Fate bars the way: around their keep\n           The slow unlovely waters creep,\n             And bind with ninefold chain.\"[73]\n\nOr perhaps she is not there, because she slew herself conscious of\nguilt, not of innocence? She herself alone knows her reason; but what\nif she was betrayed by the pleasure of the act, and gave some consent\nto Sextus, though so violently abusing her, and then was so affected\nwith remorse, that she thought death alone could expiate her sin?\nEven though this were the case, she ought still to have held her hand\nfrom suicide, if she could with her false gods have accomplished a\nfruitful repentance. However, if such were the state of the case,\nand if it were false that there were two, but one only committed\nadultery; if the truth were that both were involved in it, one by\nopen assault, the other by secret consent, then she did not kill an\ninnocent woman; and therefore her erudite defenders may maintain that\nshe is not among that class of the dwellers below \"who guiltless sent\nthemselves to doom.\" But this case of Lucretia is in such a dilemma,\nthat if you extenuate the homicide, you confirm the adultery: if you\nacquit her of adultery, you make the charge of homicide heavier;\nand there is no way out of the dilemma, when one asks, If she was\nadulterous, why praise her? if chaste, why slay her?\n\nNevertheless, for our purpose of refuting those who are unable to\ncomprehend what true sanctity is, and who therefore insult over our\noutraged Christian women, it is enough that in the instance of this\nnoble Roman matron it was said in her praise, \"There were two, but\nthe adultery was the crime of only one.\" For Lucretia was confidently\nbelieved to be superior to the contamination of any consenting\nthought to the adultery. And accordingly, since she killed herself\nfor being subjected to an outrage in which she had no guilty part,\nit is obvious that this act of hers was prompted not by the love of\npurity, but by the overwhelming burden of her shame. She was ashamed\nthat so foul a crime had been perpetrated upon her, though without\nher abetting; and this matron, with the Roman love of glory in her\nveins, was seized with a proud dread that, if she continued to live,\nit would be supposed she willingly did not resent the wrong that had\nbeen done her. She could not exhibit to men her conscience, but she\njudged that her self-inflicted punishment would testify her state\nof mind; and she burned with shame at the thought that her patient\nendurance of the foul affront that another had done her, should be\nconstrued into complicity with him. Not such was the decision of\nthe Christian women who suffered as she did, and yet survive. They\ndeclined to avenge upon themselves the guilt of others, and so add\ncrimes of their own to those crimes in which they had no share. For\nthis they would have done had their shame driven them to homicide, as\nthe lust of their enemies had driven them to adultery. Within their\nown souls, in the witness of their own conscience, they enjoy the\nglory of chastity. In the sight of God, too, they are esteemed pure,\nand this contents them; they ask no more: it suffices them to have\nopportunity of doing good, and they decline to evade the distress of\nhuman suspicion, lest they thereby deviate from the divine law.\n\n\n 20. _That Christians have no authority for committing suicide in any\n                       circumstances whatever._\n\nIt is not without significance, that in no passage of the holy\ncanonical books there can be found either divine precept or\npermission to take away our own life, whether for the sake of\nentering on the enjoyment of immortality, or of shunning, or ridding\nourselves of anything whatever. Nay, the law, rightly interpreted,\neven prohibits suicide, where it says, \"Thou shalt not kill.\" This\nis proved specially by the omission of the words \"thy neighbour,\"\nwhich are inserted when false witness is forbidden: \"Thou shalt not\nbear false witness against thy neighbour.\" Nor yet should any one\non this account suppose he has not broken this commandment if he\nhas borne false witness only against himself. For the love of our\nneighbour is regulated by the love of ourselves, as it is written,\n\"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\" If, then, he who makes\nfalse statements about himself is not less guilty of bearing false\nwitness than if he had made them to the injury of his neighbour;\nalthough in the commandment prohibiting false witness only his\nneighbour is mentioned, and persons taking no pains to understand\nit might suppose that a man was allowed to be a false witness to\nhis own hurt; how much greater reason have we to understand that a\nman may not kill himself, since in the commandment, \"Thou shalt not\nkill,\" there is no limitation added nor any exception made in favour\nof any one, and least of all in favour of him on whom the command is\nlaid! And so some attempt to extend this command even to beasts and\ncattle, as if it forbade us to take life from any creature. But if\nso, why not extend it also to the plants, and all that is rooted in\nand nourished by the earth? For though this class of creatures have\nno sensation, yet they also are said to live, and consequently they\ncan die; and therefore, if violence be done them, can be killed.\nSo, too, the apostle, when speaking of the seeds of such things\nas these, says, \"That which thou sowest is not quickened except\nit die;\" and in the Psalm it is said, \"He killed their vines with\nhail.\" Must we therefore reckon it a breaking of this commandment,\n\"Thou shalt not kill,\" to pull a flower? Are we thus insanely to\ncountenance the foolish error of the Manich\u00e6ans? Putting aside,\nthen, these ravings, if, when we say, Thou shalt not kill, we do not\nunderstand this of the plants, since they have no sensation, nor of\nthe irrational animals that fly, swim, walk, or creep, since they are\ndissociated from us by their want of reason, and are therefore by\nthe just appointment of the Creator subjected to us to kill or keep\nalive for our own uses; if so, then it remains that we understand\nthat commandment simply of man. The commandment is, \"Thou shalt not\nkill man;\" therefore neither another nor yourself, for he who kills\nhimself still kills nothing else than man.\n\n\n 21. _Of the cases in which we may put men to death without incurring\n                         the guilt of murder._\n\nHowever, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to\nits own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions\nare of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a\nspecial commission granted for a time to some individual. And in\nthis latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but\nthe sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible\nfor the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war\nin obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws\nhave represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of\ngovernment, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such\npersons have by no means violated the commandment, \"Thou shalt not\nkill.\" Abraham indeed was not merely deemed guiltless of cruelty, but\nwas even applauded for his piety, because he was ready to slay his\nson in obedience to God, not to his own passion. And it is reasonably\nenough made a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been in\ncompliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter,\nbecause she met him when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God\nwhatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle. Samson,\ntoo, who drew down the house on himself and his foes together, is\njustified only on this ground, that the Spirit who wrought wonders by\nhim had given him secret instructions to do this. With the exception,\nthen, of these two classes of cases, which are justified either by a\njust law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God\nHimself, the fountain of all justice, whoever kills a man, either\nhimself or another, is implicated in the guilt of murder.\n\n\n       22. _That suicide can never be prompted by magnanimity._\n\nBut they who have laid violent hands on themselves are perhaps to be\nadmired for their greatness of soul, though they cannot be applauded\nfor the soundness of their judgment. However, if you look at the\nmatter more closely, you will scarcely call it greatness of soul,\nwhich prompts a man to kill himself rather than bear up against some\nhardships of fortune, or sins in which he is not implicated. Is it not\nrather proof of a feeble mind, to be unable to bear either the pains\nof bodily servitude or the foolish opinion of the vulgar? And is not\nthat to be pronounced the greater mind, which rather faces than flees\nthe ills of life, and which, in comparison of the light and purity of\nconscience, holds in small esteem the judgment of men, and specially\nof the vulgar, which is frequently involved in a mist of error? And,\ntherefore, if suicide is to be esteemed a magnanimous act, none can\ntake higher rank for magnanimity than that Cleombrotus, who (as the\nstory goes), when he had read Plato's book in which he treats of the\nimmortality of the soul, threw himself from a wall, and so passed\nfrom this life to that which he believed to be better. For he was\nnot hard pressed by calamity, nor by any accusation, false or true,\nwhich he could not very well have lived down: there was, in short,\nno motive but only magnanimity urging him to seek death, and break\naway from the sweet detention of this life. And yet that this was a\nmagnanimous rather than a justifiable action, Plato himself, whom he\nhad read, would have told him; for he would certainly have been forward\nto commit, or at least to recommend suicide, had not the same bright\nintellect which saw that the soul was immortal, discerned also that to\nseek immortality by suicide was to be prohibited rather than encouraged.\n\nAgain, it is said many have killed themselves to prevent an enemy\ndoing so. But we are not inquiring whether it has been done, but\nwhether it ought to have been done. Sound judgment is to be preferred\neven to examples, and indeed examples harmonize with the voice of\nreason; but not all examples, but those only which are distinguished\nby their piety, and are proportionately worthy of imitation. For\nsuicide we cannot cite the example of patriarchs, prophets, or\napostles; though our Lord Jesus Christ, when He admonished them to\nflee from city to city if they were persecuted, might very well\nhave taken that occasion to advise them to lay violent hands on\nthemselves, and so escape their persecutors. But seeing He did not\ndo this, nor proposed this mode of departing this life, though\nHe were addressing His own friends for whom He had promised to\nprepare everlasting mansions, it is obvious that such examples as\nare produced from the \"nations that forget God,\" give no warrant of\nimitation to the worshippers of the one true God.\n\n\n  23. _What we are to think of the example of Cato, who slew himself\n              because unable to endure C\u00e6sar's victory._\n\nBesides Lucretia, of whom enough has already been said, our advocates\nof suicide have some difficulty in finding any other prescriptive\nexample, unless it be that of Cato, who killed himself at Utica. His\nexample is appealed to, not because he was the only man who did so,\nbut because he was so esteemed as a learned and excellent man, that\nit could plausibly be maintained that what he did was and is a good\nthing to do. But of this action of his, what can I say but that his\nown friends, enlightened men as he, prudently dissuaded him, and\ntherefore judged his act to be that of a feeble rather than a strong\nspirit, and dictated not by honourable feeling forestalling shame,\nbut by weakness shrinking from hardships? Indeed, Cato condemns\nhimself by the advice he gave to his dearly loved son. For if it\nwas a disgrace to live under C\u00e6sar's rule, why did the father urge\nthe son to this disgrace, by encouraging him to trust absolutely to\nC\u00e6sar's generosity? Why did he not persuade him to die along with\nhimself? If Torquatus was applauded for putting his son to death,\nwhen contrary to orders he had engaged, and engaged successfully,\nwith the enemy, why did conquered Cato spare his conquered son,\nthough he did not spare himself? Was it more disgraceful to be a\nvictor contrary to orders, than to submit to a victor contrary to the\nreceived ideas of honour? Cato, then, cannot have deemed it to be\nshameful to live under C\u00e6sar's rule, for had he done so, the father's\nsword would have delivered his son from this disgrace. The truth\nis, that his son, whom he both hoped and desired would be spared by\nC\u00e6sar, was not more loved by him than C\u00e6sar was envied the glory of\npardoning him (as indeed C\u00e6sar himself is reported to have said[74]);\nor if envy is too strong a word, let us say he was _ashamed_ that\nthis glory should be his.\n\n\n   24. _That in that virtue in which Regulus excels Cato, Christians\n                   are pre-eminently distinguished._\n\nOur opponents are offended at our preferring to Cato the saintly\nJob, who endured dreadful evils in his body rather than deliver\nhimself from all torment by self-inflicted death; or other saints, of\nwhom it is recorded in our authoritative and trustworthy books that\nthey bore captivity and the oppression of their enemies rather than\ncommit suicide. But their own books authorize us to prefer to Marcus\nCato, Marcus Regulus. For Cato had never conquered C\u00e6sar; and when\nconquered by him, disdained to submit himself to him, and that he\nmight escape this submission put himself to death. Regulus, on the\ncontrary, had formerly conquered the Carthaginians, and in command of\nthe army of Rome had won for the Roman republic a victory which no\ncitizen could bewail, and which the enemy himself was constrained to\nadmire; yet afterwards, when he in his turn was defeated by them, he\npreferred to be their captive rather than to put himself beyond their\nreach by suicide. Patient under the domination of the Carthaginians,\nand constant in his love of the Romans, he neither deprived the one\nof his conquered body, nor the other of his unconquered spirit.\nNeither was it love of life that prevented him from killing himself.\nThis was plainly enough indicated by his unhesitatingly returning,\non account of his promise and oath, to the same enemies whom he had\nmore grievously provoked by his words in the senate than even by his\narms in battle. Having such a contempt of life, and preferring to\nend it by whatever torments excited enemies might contrive, rather\nthan terminate it by his own hand, he could not more distinctly have\ndeclared how great a crime he judged suicide to be. Among all their\nfamous and remarkable citizens, the Romans have no better man to\nboast of than this, who was neither corrupted by prosperity, for he\nremained a very poor man after winning such victories; nor broken\nby adversity, for he returned intrepidly to the most miserable end.\nBut if the bravest and most renowned heroes, who had but an earthly\ncountry to defend, and who, though they had but false gods, yet\nrendered them a true worship, and carefully kept their oath to them;\nif these men, who by the custom and right of war put conquered\nenemies to the sword, yet shrank from putting an end to their own\nlives even when conquered by their enemies; if, though they had no\nfear at all of death, they would yet rather suffer slavery than\ncommit suicide, how much rather must Christians, the worshippers\nof the true God, the aspirants to a heavenly citizenship, shrink\nfrom this act, if in God's providence they have been for a season\ndelivered into the hands of their enemies to prove or to correct\nthem! And, certainly, Christians subjected to this humiliating\ncondition will not be deserted by the Most High, who for their sakes\nhumbled Himself. Neither should they forget that they are bound by\nno laws of war, nor military orders, to put even a conquered enemy\nto the sword; and if a man may not put to death the enemy who has\nsinned, or may yet sin against him, who is so infatuated as to\nmaintain that he may kill himself because an enemy has sinned, or is\ngoing to sin, against him?\n\n\n       25. _That we should not endeavour by sin to obviate sin._\n\nBut, we are told, there is ground to fear that, when the body is\nsubjected to the enemy's lust, the insidious pleasure of sense may\nentice the soul to consent to the sin, and steps must be taken to\nprevent so disastrous a result. And is not suicide the proper mode of\npreventing not only the enemy's sin, but the sin of the Christian so\nallured? Now, in the first place, the soul which is led by God and\nHis wisdom, rather than by bodily concupiscence, will certainly never\nconsent to the desire aroused in its own flesh by another's lust.\nAnd, at all events, if it be true, as the truth plainly declares,\nthat suicide is a detestable and damnable wickedness, who is such a\nfool as to say, Let us sin now, that we may obviate a possible future\nsin; let us now commit murder, lest we perhaps afterwards should\ncommit adultery? If we are so controlled by iniquity that innocence\nis out of the question, and we can at best but make a choice of\nsins, is not a future and uncertain adultery preferable to a present\nand certain murder? Is it not better to commit a wickedness which\npenitence may heal, than a crime which leaves no place for healing\ncontrition? I say this for the sake of those men or women who fear\nthey may be enticed into consenting to their violator's lust, and\nthink they should lay violent hands on themselves, and so prevent,\nnot another's sin, but their own. But far be it from the mind of\na Christian confiding in God, and resting in the hope of His aid;\nfar be it, I say, from such a mind to yield a shameful consent to\npleasures of the flesh, howsoever presented. And if that lustful\ndisobedience, which still dwells in our mortal members, follows its\nown law irrespective of our will, surely its motions in the body of\none who rebels against them are as blameless as its motions in the\nbody of one who sleeps.\n\n\n  26. _That in certain peculiar cases the examples of the saints are\n                         not to be followed._\n\nBut, they say, in the time of persecution some holy women escaped\nthose who menaced them with outrage, by casting themselves into\nrivers which they knew would drown them; and having died in this\nmanner, they are venerated in the church catholic as martyrs.\nOf such persons I do not presume to speak rashly. I cannot tell\nwhether there may not have been vouchsafed to the church some divine\nauthority, proved by trustworthy evidences, for so honouring their\nmemory: it may be that it is so. It may be they were not deceived\nby human judgment, but prompted by divine wisdom, to their act of\nself-destruction. We know that this was the case with Samson. And\nwhen God enjoins any act, and intimates by plain evidence that He\nhas enjoined it, who will call obedience criminal? Who will accuse\nso religious a submission? But then every man is not justified in\nsacrificing his son to God, because Abraham was commendable in so\ndoing. The soldier who has slain a man in obedience to the authority\nunder which he is lawfully commissioned, is not accused of murder by\nany law of his state; nay, if he has not slain him, it is then he is\naccused of treason to the state, and of despising the law. But if he\nhas been acting on his own authority, and at his own impulse, he has\nin this case incurred the crime of shedding human blood. And thus he\nis punished for doing without orders the very thing he is punished\nfor neglecting to do when he has been ordered. If the commands of\na general make so great a difference, shall the commands of God\nmake none? He, then, who knows it is unlawful to kill himself,\nmay nevertheless do so if he is ordered by Him whose commands we\nmay not neglect. Only let him be very sure that the divine command\nhas been signified. As for us, we can become privy to the secrets\nof conscience only in so far as these are disclosed to us, and so\nfar only do we judge: \"No one knoweth the things of a man, save the\nspirit of man which is in him.\"[75] But this we affirm, this we\nmaintain, this we every way pronounce to be right, that no man ought\nto inflict on himself voluntary death, for this is to escape the ills\nof time by plunging into those of eternity; that no man ought to do\nso on account of another man's sins, for this were to escape a guilt\nwhich could not pollute him, by incurring great guilt of his own;\nthat no man ought to do so on account of his own past sins, for he\nhas all the more need of this life that these sins may be healed by\nrepentance; that no man should put an end to this life to obtain that\nbetter life we look for after death, for those who die by their own\nhand have no better life after death.\n\n\n 27. _Whether voluntary death should be sought in order to avoid sin._\n\nThere remains one reason for suicide which I mentioned before, and\nwhich is thought a sound one,--namely, to prevent one's falling into\nsin either through the blandishments of pleasure or the violence of\npain. If this reason were a good one, then we should be impelled\nto exhort men at once to destroy themselves, as soon as they have\nbeen washed in the laver of regeneration, and have received the\nforgiveness of all sin. Then is the time to escape all future sin,\nwhen all past sin is blotted out. And if this escape be lawfully\nsecured by suicide, why not then specially? Why does any baptized\nperson hold his hand from taking his own life? Why does any person\nwho is freed from the hazards of this life again expose himself to\nthem, when he has power so easily to rid himself of them all, and\nwhen it is written, \"He who loveth danger shall fall into it?\"[76]\nWhy does he love, or at least face, so many serious dangers, by\nremaining in this life from which he may legitimately depart? But is\nany one so blinded and twisted in his moral nature, and so far astray\nfrom the truth, as to think that, though a man ought to make away\nwith himself for fear of being led into sin by the oppression of one\nman, his master, he ought yet to live, and so expose himself to the\nhourly temptations of this world, both to all those evils which the\noppression of one master involves, and to numberless other miseries\nin which this life inevitably implicates us? What reason, then, is\nthere for our consuming time in those exhortations by which we seek\nto animate the baptized, either to virginal chastity, or vidual\ncontinence, or matrimonial fidelity, when we have so much more simple\nand compendious a method of deliverance from sin, by persuading those\nwho are fresh from baptism to put an end to their lives, and so pass\nto their Lord pure and well-conditioned? If any one thinks that such\npersuasion should be attempted, I say not he is foolish, but mad.\nWith what face, then, can he say to any man, \"Kill yourself, lest\nto your small sins you add a heinous sin, while you live under an\nunchaste master, whose conduct is that of a barbarian?\" How can he\nsay this, if he cannot without wickedness say, \"Kill yourself, now\nthat you are washed from all your sins, lest you fall again into\nsimilar or even aggravated sins, while you live in a world which has\nsuch power to allure by its unclean pleasures, to torment by its\nhorrible cruelties, to overcome by its errors and terrors?\" It is\nwicked to say this; it is therefore wicked to kill oneself. For if\nthere could be any just cause of suicide, this were so. And since not\neven this is so, there is none.\n\n\n    28. _By what judgment of God the enemy was permitted to indulge\n           his lust on the bodies of continent Christians._\n\nLet not your life, then, be a burden to you, ye faithful servants of\nChrist, though your chastity was made the sport of your enemies. You\nhave a grand and true consolation, if you maintain a good conscience,\nand know that you did not consent to the sins of those who were\npermitted to commit sinful outrage upon you. And if you should ask\nwhy this permission was granted, indeed it is a deep providence\nof the Creator and Governor of the world; and \"unsearchable are\nHis judgments, and His ways past finding out.\"[77] Nevertheless,\nfaithfully interrogate your own souls, whether ye have not been\nunduly puffed up by your integrity, and continence, and chastity;\nand whether ye have not been so desirous of the human praise that is\naccorded to these virtues, that ye have envied some who possessed\nthem. I, for my part, do not know your hearts, and therefore I make\nno accusation; I do not even hear what your hearts answer when you\nquestion them. And yet, if they answer that it is as I have supposed\nit might be, do not marvel that you have lost that by which you can\nwin men's praise, and retain that which cannot be exhibited to men.\nIf you did not consent to sin, it was because God added His aid\nto His grace that it might not be lost, and because shame before\nmen succeeded to human glory that it might not be loved. But in\nboth respects even the fainthearted among you have a consolation,\napproved by the one experience, chastened by the other; justified\nby the one, corrected by the other. As to those whose hearts, when\ninterrogated, reply that they have never been proud of the virtue of\nvirginity, widowhood, or matrimonial chastity, but, condescending\nto those of low estate, rejoiced with trembling in these gifts of\nGod, and that they have never envied any one the like excellences\nof sanctity and purity, but rose superior to human applause, which\nis wont to be abundant in proportion to the rarity of the virtue\napplauded, and rather desired that their own number be increased,\nthan that by the smallness of their numbers each of them should be\nconspicuous;--even such faithful women, I say, must not complain\nthat permission was given to the barbarians so grossly to outrage\nthem; nor must they allow themselves to believe that God overlooked\ntheir character when He permitted acts which no one with impunity\ncommits. For some most flagrant and wicked desires are allowed free\nplay at present by the secret judgment of God, and are reserved to\nthe public and final judgment. Moreover, it is possible that those\nChristian women, who are unconscious of any undue pride on account of\ntheir virtuous chastity, whereby they sinlessly suffered the violence\nof their captors, had yet some lurking infirmity which might have\nbetrayed them into a proud and contemptuous bearing, had they not\nbeen subjected to the humiliation that befell them in the taking\nof the city. As, therefore, some men were removed by death, that\nno wickedness might change their disposition, so these women were\noutraged lest prosperity should corrupt their modesty. Neither those\nwomen, then, who were already puffed up by the circumstance that\nthey were still virgins, nor those who might have been so puffed up\nhad they not been exposed to the violence of the enemy, lost their\nchastity, but rather gained humility: the former were saved from\npride already cherished, the latter from pride that would shortly\nhave grown upon them.\n\nWe must further notice that some of those sufferers may have\nconceived that continence is a bodily good, and abides so long as\nthe body is inviolate, and did not understand that the purity both\nof the body and the soul rests on the stedfastness of the will\nstrengthened by God's grace, and cannot be forcibly taken from an\nunwilling person. From this error they are probably now delivered.\nFor when they reflect how conscientiously they served God, and when\nthey settle again to the firm persuasion that He can in nowise\ndesert those who so serve Him, and so invoke His aid; and when they\nconsider, what they cannot doubt, how pleasing to Him is chastity,\nthey are shut up to the conclusion that He could never have permitted\nthese disasters to befall His saints, if by them that saintliness\ncould be destroyed which He Himself had bestowed upon them, and\ndelights to see in them.\n\n\n  29. _What the servants of Christ should say in reply to the\n      unbelievers who cast in their teeth that Christ did not rescue\n      them from the fury of their enemies._\n\nThe whole family of God, most high and most true, has therefore a\nconsolation of its own,--a consolation which cannot deceive, and\nwhich has in it a surer hope than the tottering and falling affairs\nof earth can afford. They will not refuse the discipline of this\ntemporal life, in which they are schooled for life eternal; nor will\nthey lament their experience of it, for the good things of earth they\nuse as pilgrims who are not detained by them, and its ills either\nprove or improve them. As for those who insult over them in their\ntrials, and when ills befall them say, \"Where is thy God?\"[78] we may\nask them where their gods are when they suffer the very calamities\nfor the sake of avoiding which they worship their gods, or maintain\nthey ought to be worshipped; for the family of Christ is furnished\nwith its reply: our God is everywhere present, wholly everywhere; not\nconfined to any place. He can be present unperceived, and be absent\nwithout moving; when He exposes us to adversities, it is either to\nprove our perfections or correct our imperfections; and in return\nfor our patient endurance of the sufferings of time, He reserves for\nus an everlasting reward. But who are you, that we should deign to\nspeak with you even about your own gods, much less about our God, who\nis \"to be feared above all gods? For all the gods of the nations are\nidols; but the Lord made the heavens.\"[79]\n\n\n     30. _That those who complain of Christianity really desire to\n              live without restraint in shameful luxury._\n\nIf the famous Scipio Nasica were now alive, who was once your pontiff,\nand was unanimously chosen by the senate, when, in the panic created\nby the Punic war, they sought for the best citizen to entertain the\nPhrygian goddess, he would curb this shamelessness of yours, though\nyou would perhaps scarcely dare to look upon the countenance of such\na man. For why in your calamities do you complain of Christianity,\nunless because you desire to enjoy your luxurious licence unrestrained,\nand to lead an abandoned and profligate life without the interruption\nof any uneasiness or disaster? For certainly your desire for peace,\nand prosperity, and plenty is not prompted by any purpose of using\nthese blessings honestly, that is to say, with moderation, sobriety,\ntemperance, and piety; for your purpose rather is to run riot in an\nendless variety of sottish pleasures, and thus to generate from your\nprosperity a moral pestilence which will prove a thousand-fold more\ndisastrous than the fiercest enemies. It was such a calamity as this\nthat Scipio, your chief pontiff, your best man in the judgment of the\nwhole senate, feared when he refused to agree to the destruction of\nCarthage, Rome's rival; and opposed Cato, who advised its destruction.\nHe feared security, that enemy of weak minds, and he perceived that\na wholesome fear would be a fit guardian for the citizens. And he\nwas not mistaken: the event proved how wisely he had spoken. For\nwhen Carthage was destroyed, and the Roman republic delivered from\nits great cause of anxiety, a crowd of disastrous evils forthwith\nresulted from the prosperous condition of things. First concord was\nweakened, and destroyed by fierce and bloody seditions; then followed,\nby a concatenation of baleful causes, civil wars, which brought in\ntheir train such massacres, such bloodshed, such lawless and cruel\nproscription and plunder, that those Romans who, in the days of their\nvirtue, had expected injury only at the hands of their enemies, now\nthat their virtue was lost, suffered greater cruelties at the hands of\ntheir fellow-citizens. The lust of rule, which with other vices existed\namong the Romans in more unmitigated intensity than among any other\npeople, after it had taken possession of the more powerful few, subdued\nunder its yoke the rest, worn and wearied.\n\n\n     31. _By what steps the passion for governing increased among\n                             the Romans._\n\nFor at what stage would that passion rest when once it has lodged\nin a proud spirit, until by a succession of advances it has reached\neven the throne? And to obtain such advances nothing avails but\nunscrupulous ambition. But unscrupulous ambition has nothing to work\nupon, save in a nation corrupted by avarice and luxury. Moreover,\na people becomes avaricious and luxurious by prosperity; and it\nwas this which that very prudent man Nasica was endeavouring to\navoid when he opposed the destruction of the greatest, strongest,\nwealthiest city of Rome's enemy. He thought that thus fear would act\nas a curb on lust, and that lust being curbed would not run riot\nin luxury, and that luxury being prevented avarice would be at an\nend; and that these vices being banished, virtue would flourish and\nincrease, to the great profit of the state; and liberty, the fit\ncompanion of virtue, would abide unfettered. For similar reasons,\nand animated by the same considerate patriotism, that same chief\npontiff of yours--I still refer to him who was adjudged Rome's best\nman without one dissentient voice--threw cold water on the proposal\nof the senate to build a circle of seats round the theatre, and in\na very weighty speech warned them against allowing the luxurious\nmanners of Greece to sap the Roman manliness, and persuaded them not\nto yield to the enervating and emasculating influence of foreign\nlicentiousness. So authoritative and forcible were his words, that\nthe senate was moved to prohibit the use even of those benches\nwhich hitherto had been customarily brought to the theatre for the\ntemporary use of the citizens.[80] How eagerly would such a man as\nthis have banished from Rome the scenic exhibitions themselves, had\nhe dared to oppose the authority of those whom he supposed to be\ngods! For he did not know that they were malicious devils; or if he\ndid, he supposed they should rather be propitiated than despised.\nFor there had not yet been revealed to the Gentiles the heavenly\ndoctrine which should purify their hearts by faith, and transform\ntheir natural disposition by humble godliness, and turn them from the\nservice of proud devils to seek the things that are in heaven, or\neven above the heavens.\n\n\n         32. _Of the establishment of scenic entertainments._\n\nKnow then, ye who are ignorant of this, and ye who feign ignorance be\nreminded, while you murmur against Him who has freed you from such\nrulers, that the scenic games, exhibitions of shameless folly and\nlicence, were established at Rome, not by men's vicious cravings,\nbut by the appointment of your gods. Much more pardonably might\nyou have rendered divine honours to Scipio than to such gods as\nthese. The gods were not so moral as their pontiff. But give me now\nyour attention, if your mind, inebriated by its deep potations of\nerror, can take in any sober truth. The gods enjoined that games\nbe exhibited in their honour to stay a physical pestilence; their\npontiff prohibited the theatre from being constructed, to prevent a\nmoral pestilence. If, then, there remains in you sufficient mental\nenlightenment to prefer the soul to the body, choose whom you will\nworship. Besides, though the pestilence was stayed, this was not\nbecause the voluptuous madness of stage-plays had taken possession of\na warlike people hitherto accustomed only to the games of the circus;\nbut these astute and wicked spirits, foreseeing that in due course\nthe pestilence would shortly cease, took occasion to infect, not the\nbodies, but the morals of their worshippers, with a far more serious\ndisease. And in this pestilence these gods find great enjoyment,\nbecause it benighted the minds of men with so gross a darkness, and\ndishonoured them with so foul a deformity, that even quite recently\n(will posterity be able to credit it?) some of those who fled from\nthe sack of Rome and found refuge in Carthage, were so infected with\nthis disease, that day after day they seemed to contend with one\nanother who should most madly run after the actors in the theatres.\n\n\n    33. _That the overthrow of Rome has not corrected the vices of\n                             the Romans._\n\nOh infatuated men, what is this blindness, or rather madness, which\npossesses you? How is it that while, as we hear, even the eastern\nnations are bewailing your ruin, and while powerful states in the\nmost remote parts of the earth are mourning your fall as a public\ncalamity, ye yourselves should be crowding to the theatres, should\nbe pouring into them and filling them; and, in short, be playing a\nmadder part now than ever before? This was the foul plague-spot,\nthis the wreck of virtue and honour that Scipio sought to preserve\nyou from when he prohibited the construction of theatres; this was\nhis reason for desiring that you might still have an enemy to fear,\nseeing as he did how easily prosperity would corrupt and destroy you.\nHe did not consider that republic flourishing whose walls stand, but\nwhose morals are in ruins. But the seductions of evil-minded devils\nhad more influence with you than the precautions of prudent men.\nHence the injuries you do, you will not permit to be imputed to you;\nbut the injuries you suffer, you impute to Christianity. Depraved by\ngood fortune, and not chastened by adversity, what you desire in the\nrestoration of a peaceful and secure state, is not the tranquillity\nof the commonwealth, but the impunity of your own vicious luxury.\nScipio wished you to be hard pressed by an enemy, that you might not\nabandon yourselves to luxurious manners; but so abandoned are you,\nthat not even when crushed by the enemy is your luxury repressed.\nYou have missed the profit of your calamity; you have been made most\nwretched, and have remained most profligate.\n\n\n      34. _Of God's clemency in moderating the ruin of the city._\n\nAnd that you are yet alive is due to God, who spares you that you\nmay be admonished to repent and reform your lives. It is He who has\npermitted you, ungrateful as you are, to escape the sword of the\nenemy, by calling yourselves His servants, or by finding asylum in\nthe sacred places of the martyrs.\n\nIt is said that Romulus and Remus, in order to increase the\npopulation of the city they founded, opened a sanctuary in which\nevery man might find asylum and absolution of all crime,--a\nremarkable foreshadowing of what has recently occurred in honour of\nChrist. The destroyers of Rome followed the example of its founders.\nBut it was not greatly to their credit that the latter, for the sake\nof increasing the number of their citizens, did that which the former\nhave done, lest the number of their enemies should be diminished.\n\n\n    35. _Of the sons of the church who are hidden among the wicked,\n              and of false Christians within the church._\n\nLet these and similar answers (if any fuller and fitter answers can be\nfound) be given to their enemies by the redeemed family of the Lord\nChrist, and by the pilgrim city of King Christ. But let this city bear\nin mind, that among her enemies lie hid those who are destined to\nbe fellow-citizens, that she may not think it a fruitless labour to\nbear what they inflict as enemies until they become confessors of the\nfaith. So, too, as long as she is a stranger in the world, the city\nof God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some\nwho shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints. Of these, some\nare not now recognised; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate\nto make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose\nsacramental badge they wear. These men you may to-day see thronging the\nchurches with us, to-morrow crowding the theatres with the godless.\nBut we have the less reason to despair of the reclamation even of such\npersons, if among our most declared enemies there are now some, unknown\nto themselves, who are destined to become our friends. In truth, these\ntwo cities are entangled together in this world, and intermixed until\nthe last judgment effect their separation. I now proceed to speak, as\nGod shall help me, of the rise, progress, and end of these two cities;\nand what I write, I write for the glory of the city of God, that, being\nplaced in comparison with the other, it may shine with a brighter\nlustre.\n\n\n   36. _What subjects are to be handled in the following discourse._\n\nBut I have still some things to say in confutation of those who\nrefer the disasters of the Roman republic to our religion, because\nit prohibits the offering of sacrifices to the gods. For this end\nI must recount all, or as many as may seem sufficient, of the\ndisasters which befell that city and its subject provinces, before\nthese sacrifices were prohibited; for all these disasters they would\ndoubtless have attributed to us, if at that time our religion had\nshed its light upon them, and had prohibited their sacrifices. I\nmust then go on to show what social well-being the true God, in\nwhose hand are all kingdoms, vouchsafed to grant to them that their\nempire might increase. I must show why He did so, and how their false\ngods, instead of at all aiding them, greatly injured them by guile\nand deceit. And, lastly, I must meet those who, when on this point\nconvinced and confuted by irrefragable proofs, endeavour to maintain\nthat they worship the gods, not hoping for the present advantages of\nthis life, but for those which are to be enjoyed after death. And\nthis, if I am not mistaken, will be the most difficult part of my\ntask, and will be worthy of the loftiest argument; for we must then\nenter the lists with the philosophers, not the mere common herd of\nphilosophers, but the most renowned, who in many points agree with\nourselves, as regarding the immortality of the soul, and that the\ntrue God created the world, and by His providence rules all He has\ncreated. But as they differ from us on other points, we must not\nshrink from the task of exposing their errors, that, having refuted\nthe gainsaying of the wicked with such ability as God may vouchsafe,\nwe may assert the city of God, and true piety, and the worship of\nGod, to which alone the promise of true and everlasting felicity is\nattached. Here, then, let us conclude, that we may enter on these\nsubjects in a fresh book.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[25] See the Editor's Preface.\n\n[26] Ps. xciv. 15, rendered otherwise in Eng. ver.\n\n[27] Jas. iv. 6 and 1 Pet. v. 5.\n\n[28] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, vi. 854.\n\n[29] The Benedictines remind us that Alexander and Xenophon, at least\non some occasions, did so.\n\n[30] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, ii. 501-2. The renderings of Virgil are from\nConington.\n\n[31] _Ibid._ ii. 166.\n\n[32] _Ibid._\n\n[33] Horace, _Ep._ I. ii. 69.\n\n[34] _\u00c6neid_, i. 71.\n\n[35] _Ibid._ ii. 319.\n\n[36] _Ibid._ 293.\n\n[37] Non numina bona, sed omina mala.\n\n[38] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, ii. 761.\n\n[39] Though \"levis\" was the word usually employed to signify the\ninconstancy of the Greeks, it is evidently here used, in opposition\nto \"immanis\" of the following clause, to indicate that the Greeks\nwere more civilised than the barbarians, and not relentless, but, as\nwe say, easily moved.\n\n[40] _De Conj. Cat._ c. 51.\n\n[41] Sallust, _Cat. Conj._ ix.\n\n[42] Ps. lxxxix. 32.\n\n[43] Matt. v. 45.\n\n[44] Rom. ii. 4.\n\n[45] So Cyprian (_Contra Demetrianum_) says, \"P\u0153nam de adversis mundi\nille sentit, cui et l\u00e6titia et gloria omnis in mundo est.\"\n\n[46] Ezek. xxxiii. 6.\n\n[47] Compare with this chapter the first homily of Chrysostom to the\npeople of Antioch.\n\n[48] Rom. viii. 28.\n\n[49] 1 Pet. iii. 4.\n\n[50] 1 Tim. vi. 6-10.\n\n[51] Job i. 21.\n\n[52] 1 Tim. vi. 17-19.\n\n[53] Matt. vi. 19-21.\n\n[54] Paulinus was a native of Bordeaux, and both by inheritance and\nmarriage acquired great wealth, which, after his conversion in his\nthirty-sixth year, he distributed to the poor. He became bishop of\nNola in A.D. 409, being then in his fifty-sixth year. Nola was taken\nby Alaric shortly after the sack of Rome.\n\n[55] Much of a kindred nature might be gathered from the Stoics.\nAntoninus says (ii. 14): \"Though thou shouldest be going to live\n3000 years, and as many times 10,000 years, still remember that no\nman loses any other life than this which he now lives, nor lives any\nother than this which he now loses. The longest and the shortest are\nthus brought to the same.\"\n\n[56] Augustine expresses himself more fully on this subject in his\ntract, _De cura pro mortuis gerenda_.\n\n[57] Matt. x. 28.\n\n[58] Luke xii. 4.\n\n[59] Ps. lxxix. 2, 3.\n\n[60] Ps. cxvi. 15.\n\n[61] Diogenes especially, and his followers. See also Seneca, _De\nTranq._ c. 14, and _Epist._ 92; and in Cicero's _Tusc. Disp._ i. 43,\nthe answer of Theodorus, the Cyrenian philosopher, to Lysimachus, who\nthreatened him with the cross: \"Threaten that to your courtiers; it\nis of no consequence to Theodorus whether he rot in the earth or in\nthe air.\"\n\n[62] Lucan, _Pharsalia_, vii. 819, of those whom C\u00e6sar forbade to be\nburied after the battle of Pharsalia.\n\n[63] Gen. xxv. 9, xxxv. 29, etc.\n\n[64] Gen. xlvii. 29, l. 24.\n\n[65] Tob. xii. 12.\n\n[66] Matt. xxvi. 10-13.\n\n[67] John xix. 38.\n\n[68] Dan. iii.\n\n[69] Jonah.\n\n[70] \"Second to none,\" as he is called by Herodotus, who first of all\ntells his well-known story (_Clio._ 23, 24).\n\n[71] Augustine here uses the words of Cicero (\"vigilando\nperemerunt\"), who refers to Regulus, _in Pisonem_, c. 19. Aulus\nGellius, quoting Tubero and Tuditanus (vi. 4), adds some further\nparticulars regarding these tortures.\n\n[72] As the Stoics generally would affirm.\n\n[73] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, vi. 434.\n\n[74] Plutarch's _Life of Cato_, 72.\n\n[75] 1 Cor. ii. 11.\n\n[76] Ecclus. iii. 27.\n\n[77] Rom. xi. 33.\n\n[78] Ps. xlii. 10.\n\n[79] Ps. xcvi. 4, 5.\n\n[80] Originally the spectators had to stand, and now (according to\nLivy, _Ep._ xlviii.) the old custom was restored.\n\n\n\n\n                             BOOK SECOND.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  IN THIS BOOK AUGUSTINE REVIEWS THOSE CALAMITIES WHICH THE ROMANS\n      SUFFERED BEFORE THE TIME OF CHRIST, AND WHILE THE WORSHIP OF\n      THE FALSE GODS WAS UNIVERSALLY PRACTISED; AND DEMONSTRATES\n      THAT, FAR FROM BEING PRESERVED FROM MISFORTUNE BY THE GODS, THE\n      ROMANS HAVE BEEN BY THEM OVERWHELMED WITH THE ONLY, OR AT LEAST\n      THE GREATEST, OF ALL CALAMITIES--THE CORRUPTION OF MANNERS, AND\n      THE VICES OF THE SOUL.\n\n\n   1. _Of the limits which must be put to the necessity of replying\n                           to an adversary._\n\nIf the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence\nof truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a\nhealth-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and\npiety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and\nexpress them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse\nto refute the errors of empty conjecture. But this mental infirmity\nis now more prevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that\neven after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove\nit to man, they hold for the very truth their own unreasonable\nfancies, either on account of their great blindness, which prevents\nthem from seeing what is plainly set before them, or on account of\ntheir opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging\nthe force of what they do see. There therefore frequently arises a\nnecessity of speaking more fully on those points which are already\nclear, that we may, as it were, present them not to the eye, but\neven to the touch, so that they may be felt even by those who close\ntheir eyes against them. And yet to what end shall we ever bring our\ndiscussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we proceed\non the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us?\nFor those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so\nhardened by the habit of contradiction, that though they understand\nthey cannot yield to them, reply to us, and, as it is written, \"speak\nhard things,\"[81] and are incorrigibly vain. Now, if we were to propose\nto confute their objections as often as they with brazen face chose\nto disregard our arguments, and as often as they could by any means\ncontradict our statements, you see how endless, and fruitless, and\npainful a task we should be undertaking. And therefore I do not wish my\nwritings to be judged even by you, my son Marcellinus, nor by any of\nthose others at whose service this work of mine is freely and in all\nChristian charity put, if at least you intend always to require a reply\nto every exception which you hear taken to what you read in it; for so\nyou would become like those silly women of whom the apostle says that\nthey are \"always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of\nthe truth.\"[82]\n\n\n        2. _Recapitulation of the contents of the first book._\n\nIn the foregoing book, having begun to speak of the city of God, to\nwhich I have resolved, Heaven helping me, to consecrate the whole of\nthis work, it was my first endeavour to reply to those who attribute\nthe wars by which the world is being devastated, and specially the\nrecent sack of Rome by the barbarians, to the religion of Christ, which\nprohibits the offering of abominable sacrifices to devils. I have shown\nthat they ought rather to attribute it to Christ, that for His name's\nsake the barbarians, in contravention of all custom and law of war,\nthrew open as sanctuaries the largest churches, and in many instances\nshowed such reverence to Christ, that not only His genuine servants,\nbut even those who in their terror feigned themselves to be so, were\nexempted from all those hardships which by the custom of war may\nlawfully be inflicted. Then out of this there arose the question, why\nwicked and ungrateful men were permitted to share in these benefits;\nand why, too, the hardships and calamities of war were inflicted on the\ngodly as well as on the ungodly. And in giving a suitably full answer\nto this large question, I occupied some considerable space, partly that\nI might relieve the anxieties which disturb many when they observe that\nthe blessings of God, and the common and daily human casualties, fall\nto the lot of bad men and good without distinction; but mainly that I\nmight minister some consolation to those holy and chaste women who were\noutraged by the enemy, in such a way as to shock their modesty, though\nnot to sully their purity, and that I might preserve them from being\nashamed of life, though they have no guilt to be ashamed of. And then I\nbriefly spoke against those who with a most shameless wantonness insult\nover those poor Christians who were subjected to those calamities, and\nespecially over those broken-hearted and humiliated, though chaste and\nholy women; these fellows themselves being most depraved and unmanly\nprofligates, quite degenerate from the genuine Romans, whose famous\ndeeds are abundantly recorded in history, and everywhere celebrated,\nbut who have found in their descendants the greatest enemies of\ntheir glory. In truth, Rome, which was founded and increased by the\nlabours of these ancient heroes, was more shamefully ruined by their\ndescendants, while its walls were still standing, than it is now by the\nrazing of them. For in this ruin there fell stones and timbers; but in\nthe ruin those profligates effected, there fell, not the mural, but the\nmoral bulwarks and ornaments of the city, and their hearts burned with\npassions more destructive than the flames which consumed their houses.\nThus I brought my first book to a close. And now I go on to speak of\nthose calamities which that city itself, or its subject provinces,\nhave suffered since its foundation; all of which they would equally\nhave attributed to the Christian religion, if at that early period the\ndoctrine of the gospel against their false and deceiving gods had been\nas largely and freely proclaimed as now.\n\n\n  3. _That we need only to read history in order to see what\n      calamities the Romans suffered before the religion of Christ\n      began to compete with the worship of the gods._\n\nBut remember that, in recounting these things, I have still to\naddress myself to ignorant men; so ignorant, indeed, as to give birth\nto the common saying, \"Drought and Christianity go hand in hand.\"[83]\nThere are indeed some among them who are thoroughly well educated\nmen, and have a taste for history, in which the things I speak of are\nopen to their observation; but in order to irritate the uneducated\nmasses against us, they feign ignorance of these events, and do what\nthey can to make the vulgar believe that those disasters, which in\ncertain places and at certain times uniformly befall mankind, are\nthe result of Christianity, which is being everywhere diffused, and\nis possessed of a renown and brilliancy which quite eclipse their\nown gods.[84] Let them then, along with us, call to mind with what\nvarious and repeated disasters the prosperity of Rome was blighted,\nbefore ever Christ had come in the flesh, and before His name had\nbeen blazoned among the nations with that glory which they vainly\ngrudge. Let them, if they can, defend their gods in this article,\nsince they maintain that they worship them in order to be preserved\nfrom these disasters, which they now impute to us if they suffer in\nthe least degree. For why did these gods permit the disasters I am\nto speak of to fall on their worshippers before the preaching of\nChrist's name offended them, and put an end to their sacrifices?\n\n\n  4. _That the worshippers of the gods never received from them any\n      healthy moral precepts, and that in celebrating their worship\n      all sorts of impurities were practised._\n\nFirst of all, we would ask why their gods took no steps to improve\nthe morals of their worshippers. That the true God should neglect\nthose who did not seek His help, that was but justice; but why did\nthose gods, from whose worship ungrateful men are now complaining\nthat they are prohibited, issue no laws which might have guided\ntheir devotees to a virtuous life? Surely it was but just, that\nsuch care as men showed to the worship of the gods, the gods on\ntheir part should have to the conduct of men. But, it is replied, it\nis by his own will a man goes astray. Who denies it? But none the\nless was it incumbent on these gods, who were men's guardians, to\npublish in plain terms the laws of a good life, and not to conceal\nthem from their worshippers. It was their part to send prophets to\nreach and convict such as broke these laws, and publicly to proclaim\nthe punishments which await evildoers, and the rewards which may\nbe looked for by those that do well. Did ever the walls of any of\ntheir temples echo to any such warning voice? I myself, when I was a\nyoung man, used sometimes to go to the sacrilegious entertainments\nand spectacles; I saw the priests raving in religious excitement,\nand heard the choristers; I took pleasure in the shameful games\nwhich were celebrated in honour of gods and goddesses, of the virgin\nC\u0153lestis,[85] and Berecynthia,[86] the mother of all the gods. And on\nthe holy day consecrated to her purification, there were sung before\nher couch productions so obscene and filthy for the ear--I do not say\nof the mother of the gods, but of the mother of any senator or honest\nman--nay, so impure, that not even the mother of the foul-mouthed\nplayers themselves could have formed one of the audience. For natural\nreverence for parents is a bond which the most abandoned cannot\nignore. And, accordingly, the lewd actions and filthy words with\nwhich these players honoured the mother of the gods, in presence of\na vast assemblage and audience of both sexes, they could not for\nvery shame have rehearsed at home in presence of their own mothers.\nAnd the crowds that were gathered from all quarters by curiosity,\noffended modesty must, I should suppose, have scattered in the\nconfusion of shame. If these are sacred rites, what is sacrilege? If\nthis is purification, what is pollution? This festivity was called\nthe Tables,[87] as if a banquet were being given at which unclean\ndevils might find suitable refreshment. For it is not difficult to\nsee what kind of spirits they must be who are delighted with such\nobscenities, unless, indeed, a man be blinded by these evil spirits\npassing themselves off under the name of gods, and either disbelieves\nin their existence, or leads such a life as prompts him rather to\npropitiate and fear them than the true God.\n\n\n      5. _Of the obscenities practised in honour of the mother of\n                              the gods._\n\nIn this matter I would prefer to have as my assessors in judgment,\nnot those men who rather take pleasure in these infamous customs\nthan take pains to put an end to them, but that same Scipio Nasica\nwho was chosen by the senate as the citizen most worthy to receive\nin his hands the image of that demon Cybele, and convey it into the\ncity. He would tell us whether he would be proud to see his own\nmother so highly esteemed by the state as to have divine honours\nadjudged to her; as the Greeks and Romans and other nations have\ndecreed divine honours to men who had been of material service to\nthem, and have believed that their mortal benefactors were thus made\nimmortal, and enrolled among the gods.[88] Surely he would desire\nthat his mother should enjoy such felicity were it possible. But if\nwe proceeded to ask him whether, among the honours paid to her, he\nwould wish such shameful rites as these to be celebrated, would he\nnot at once exclaim that he would rather his mother lay stone-dead,\nthan survive as a goddess to lend her ear to these obscenities? Is it\npossible that he who was of so severe a morality, that he used his\ninfluence as a Roman senator to prevent the building of a theatre in\nthat city dedicated to the manly virtues, would wish his mother to\nbe propitiated as a goddess with words which would have brought the\nblush to her cheek when a Roman matron? Could he possibly believe\nthat the modesty of an estimable woman would be so transformed by her\npromotion to divinity, that she would suffer herself to be invoked\nand celebrated in terms so gross and immodest, that if she had heard\nthe like while alive upon earth, and had listened without stopping\nher ears and hurrying from the spot, her relatives, her husband, and\nher children would have blushed for her? Therefore, the mother of\nthe gods being such a character as the most profligate man would be\nashamed to have for his mother, and meaning to enthral the minds of\nthe Romans, demanded for her service their best citizen, not to ripen\nhim still more in virtue by her helpful counsel, but to entangle\nhim by her deceit, like her of whom it is written, \"The adulteress\nwill hunt for the precious soul.\"[89] Her intent was to puff up this\nhigh-souled man by an apparently divine testimony to his excellence,\nin order that he might rely upon his own eminence in virtue, and\nmake no further efforts after true piety and religion, without which\nnatural genius, however brilliant, vapours into pride and comes to\nnothing. For what but a guileful purpose could that goddess demand\nthe best man, seeing that in her own sacred festivals she requires\nsuch obscenities as the best men would be covered with shame to hear\nat their own tables?\n\n\n  6. _That the gods of the pagans never inculcated holiness of life._\n\nThis is the reason why those divinities quite neglected the lives\nand morals of the cities and nations who worshipped them, and threw\nno dreadful prohibition in their way to hinder them from becoming\nutterly corrupt, and to preserve them from those terrible and\ndetestable evils which visit not harvests and vintages, not house and\npossessions, not the body which is subject to the soul, but the soul\nitself, the spirit that rules the whole man. If there was any such\nprohibition, let it be produced, let it be proved. They will tell us\nthat purity and probity were inculcated upon those who were initiated\nin the mysteries of religion, and that secret incitements to virtue\nwere whispered in the ear of the _\u00e9lite_; but this is an idle boast.\nLet them show or name to us the places which were at any time\nconsecrated to assemblages in which, instead of the obscene songs and\nlicentious acting of players, instead of the celebration of those\nmost filthy and shameless Fugalia[90] (well called Fugalia, since\nthey banish modesty and right feeling), the people were commanded\nin the name of the gods to restrain avarice, bridle impurity, and\nconquer ambition; where, in short, they might learn in that school\nwhich Persius vehemently lashes them to, when he says: \"Be taught,\nye abandoned creatures, and ascertain the causes of things; what we\nare, and for what end we are born; what is the law of our success in\nlife, and by what art we may turn the goal without making shipwreck;\nwhat limit we should put to our wealth, what we may lawfully desire,\nand what uses filthy lucre serves; how much we should bestow upon our\ncountry and our family; learn, in short, what God meant thee to be,\nand what place He has ordered you to fill.\"[91] Let them name to us\nthe places where such instructions were wont to be communicated from\nthe gods, and where the people who worshipped them were accustomed to\nresort to hear them, as we can point to our churches built for this\npurpose in every land where the Christian religion is received.\n\n\n  7. _That the suggestions of philosophers are precluded from having\n      any moral effect, because they have not the authority which\n      belongs to divine instruction, and because man's natural bias\n      to evil induces him rather to follow the examples of the gods\n      than to obey the precepts of men._\n\nBut will they perhaps remind us of the schools of the philosophers,\nand their disputations? In the first place, these belong not to Rome,\nbut to Greece; and even if we yield to them that they are now Roman,\nbecause Greece itself has become a Roman province, still the teachings\nof the philosophers are not the commandments of the gods, but the\ndiscoveries of men, who, at the prompting of their own speculative\nability, made efforts to discover the hidden laws of nature, and\nthe right and wrong in ethics, and in dialectic what was consequent\naccording to the rules of logic, and what was inconsequent and\nerroneous. And some of them, by God's help, made great discoveries;\nbut when left to themselves they were betrayed by human infirmity, and\nfell into mistakes. And this was ordered by divine providence, that\ntheir pride might be restrained, and that by their example it might\nbe pointed out that it is humility which has access to the highest\nregions. But of this we shall have more to say, if the Lord God of\ntruth permit, in its own place.[92] However, if the philosophers have\nmade any discoveries which are sufficient to guide men to virtue and\nblessedness, would it not have been greater justice to vote divine\nhonours to them? Were it not more accordant with every virtuous\nsentiment to read Plato's writings in a \"Temple of Plato,\" than to be\npresent in the temples of devils to witness the priests of Cybele[93]\nmutilating themselves, the effeminate being consecrated, the raving\nfanatics cutting themselves, and whatever other cruel or shameful,\nor shamefully cruel or cruelly shameful, ceremony is enjoined by the\nritual of such gods as these? Were it not a more suitable education,\nand more likely to prompt the youth to virtue, if they heard public\nrecitals of the laws of the gods, instead of the vain laudation of the\ncustoms and laws of their ancestors? Certainly all the worshippers of\nthe Roman gods, when once they are possessed by what Persius calls \"the\nburning poison of lust,\"[94] prefer to witness the deeds of Jupiter\nrather than to hear what Plato taught or Cato censured. Hence the young\nprofligate in Terence, when he sees on the wall a fresco representing\nthe fabled descent of Jupiter into the lap of Dana\u00eb in the form of a\ngolden shower, accepts this as authoritative precedent for his own\nlicentiousness, and boasts that he is an imitator of God. \"And what\nGod?\" he says. \"He who with His thunder shakes the loftiest temples.\nAnd was I, a poor creature compared to Him, to make bones of it? No; I\ndid it, and with all my heart.\"[95]\n\n\n  8. _That the theatrical exhibitions publishing the shameful actions\n         of the gods, propitiated rather than offended them._\n\nBut, some one will interpose, these are the fables of poets, not\nthe deliverances of the gods themselves. Well, I have no mind to\narbitrate between the lewdness of theatrical entertainments and of\nmystic rites; only this I say, and history bears me out in making the\nassertion, that those same entertainments, in which the fictions of\npoets are the main attraction, were not introduced in the festivals\nof the gods by the ignorant devotion of the Romans, but that the gods\nthemselves gave the most urgent commands to this effect, and indeed\nextorted from the Romans these solemnities and celebrations in their\nhonour. I touched on this in the preceding book, and mentioned that\ndramatic entertainments were first inaugurated at Rome on occasion\nof a pestilence, and by authority of the pontiff. And what man is\nthere who is not more likely to adopt, for the regulation of his own\nlife, the examples that are represented in plays which have a divine\nsanction, rather than the precepts written and promulgated with no\nmore than human authority? If the poets gave a false representation\nof Jove in describing him as adulterous, then it were to be expected\nthat the chaste gods should in anger avenge so wicked a fiction, in\nplace of encouraging the games which circulated it. Of these plays,\nthe most inoffensive are comedies and tragedies, that is to say, the\ndramas which poets write for the stage, and which, though they often\nhandle impure subjects, yet do so without the filthiness of language\nwhich characterizes many other performances; and it is these dramas\nwhich boys are obliged by their seniors to read and learn as a part\nof what is called a liberal and gentlemanly education.[96]\n\n\n    9. _That the poetical licence which the Greeks, in obedience to\n      their gods, allowed, was restrained by the ancient Romans._\n\nThe opinion of the ancient Romans on this matter is attested by\nCicero in his work _De Republica_, in which Scipio, one of the\ninterlocutors, says, \"The lewdness of comedy could never have been\nsuffered by audiences, unless the customs of society had previously\nsanctioned the same lewdness.\" And in the earlier days the Greeks\npreserved a certain reasonableness in their licence, and made it a\nlaw, that whatever comedy wished to say of any one, it must say it\nof him by name. And so in the same work of Cicero's, Scipio says,\n\"Whom has it not aspersed? Nay, whom has it not worried? Whom has\nit spared? Allow that it may assail demagogues and factions, men\ninjurious to the commonwealth--a Cleon, a Cleophon, a Hyperbolus.\nThat is tolerable, though it had been more seemly for the public\ncensor to brand such men, than for a poet to lampoon them; but to\nblacken the fame of Pericles with scurrilous verse, after he had\nwith the utmost dignity presided over their state alike in war and\nin peace, was as unworthy of a poet, as if our own Plautus or N\u00e6vius\nwere to bring Publius and Cneius Scipio on the comic stage, or as if\nC\u00e6cilius were to caricature Cato.\" And then a little after he goes\non: \"Though our Twelve Tables attached the penalty of death only to\na very few offences, yet among these few this was one: if any man\nshould have sung a pasquinade, or have composed a satire calculated\nto bring infamy or disgrace on another person. Wisely decreed. For it\nis by the decisions of magistrates, and by a well-informed justice,\nthat our lives ought to be judged, and not by the flighty fancies of\npoets; neither ought we to be exposed to hear calumnies, save where\nwe have the liberty of replying, and defending ourselves before an\nadequate tribunal.\" This much I have judged it advisable to quote\nfrom the fourth book of Cicero's _De Republica_; and I have made the\nquotation word for word, with the exception of some words omitted,\nand some slightly transposed, for the sake of giving the sense more\nreadily. And certainly the extract is pertinent to the matter I am\nendeavouring to explain. Cicero makes some further remarks, and\nconcludes the passage by showing that the ancient Romans did not\npermit any living man to be either praised or blamed on the stage.\nBut the Greeks, as I said, though not so moral, were more logical in\nallowing this licence which the Romans forbade: for they saw that\ntheir gods approved and enjoyed the scurrilous language of low comedy\nwhen directed not only against men, but even against themselves; and\nthis, whether the infamous actions imputed to them were the fictions\nof poets, or were their actual iniquities commemorated and acted in\nthe theatres. And would that the spectators had judged them worthy\nonly of laughter, and not of imitation! Manifestly it had been a\nstretch of pride to spare the good name of the leading men and the\ncommon citizens, when the very deities did not grudge that their own\nreputation should be blemished.\n\n\n   10. _That the devils, in suffering either false or true crimes to\n         be laid to their charge, meant to do men a mischief._\n\nIt is alleged, in excuse of this practice, that the stories told\nof the gods are not true, but false, and mere inventions; but this\nonly makes matters worse, if we form our estimate by the morality\nour religion teaches; and if we consider the malice of the devils,\nwhat more wily and astute artifice could they practise upon men?\nWhen a slander is uttered against a leading statesman of upright and\nuseful life, is it not reprehensible in proportion to its untruth\nand groundlessness? What punishment, then, shall be sufficient when\nthe gods are the objects of so wicked and outrageous an injustice?\nBut the devils, whom these men repute gods, are content that even\niniquities they are guiltless of should be ascribed to them, so long\nas they may entangle men's minds in the meshes of these opinions, and\ndraw them on along with themselves to their predestinated punishment:\nwhether such things were actually committed by the men whom these\ndevils, delighting in human infatuation, cause to be worshipped as\ngods, and in whose stead they, by a thousand malign and deceitful\nartifices, substitute themselves, and so receive worship; or whether,\nthough they were really the crimes of men, these wicked spirits\ngladly allowed them to be attributed to higher beings, that there\nmight seem to be conveyed from heaven itself a sufficient sanction\nfor the perpetration of shameful wickedness. The Greeks, therefore,\nseeing the character of the gods they served, thought that the poets\nshould certainly not refrain from showing up human vices on the\nstage, either because they desired to be like their gods in this, or\nbecause they were afraid that, if they required for themselves a more\nunblemished reputation than they asserted for the gods, they might\nprovoke them to anger.\n\n\n  11. _That the Greeks admitted players to offices of state, on\n      the ground that men who pleased the gods should not be\n      contemptuously treated by their fellows_.\n\nIt was a part of this same reasonableness of the Greeks which induced\nthem to bestow upon the actors of these same plays no inconsiderable\ncivic honours. In the above-mentioned book of the _De Republica_,\nit is mentioned that \u00c6schines, a very eloquent Athenian, who had\nbeen a tragic actor in his youth, became a statesman, and that the\nAthenians again and again sent another tragedian, Aristodemus, as\ntheir plenipotentiary to Philip. For they judged it unbecoming to\ncondemn and treat as infamous persons those who were the chief actors\nin the scenic entertainments which they saw to be so pleasing to\nthe gods. No doubt this was immoral of the Greeks, but there can\nbe as little doubt they acted in conformity with the character of\ntheir gods; for how could they have presumed to protect the conduct\nof the citizens from being cut to pieces by the tongues of poets\nand players, who were allowed, and even enjoined by the gods, to\ntear their divine reputation to tatters? And how could they hold in\ncontempt the men who acted in the theatres those dramas which, as\nthey had ascertained, gave pleasure to the gods whom they worshipped?\nNay, how could they but grant to them the highest civic honours?\nOn what plea could they honour the priests who offered for them\nacceptable sacrifices to the gods, if they branded with infamy the\nactors who in behalf of the people gave to the gods that pleasure\nor honour which they demanded, and which, according to the account\nof the priests, they were angry at not receiving? Labeo,[97] whose\nlearning makes him an authority on such points, is of opinion that\nthe distinction between good and evil deities should find expression\nin a difference of worship; that the evil should be propitiated by\nbloody sacrifices and doleful rites, but the good with a joyful and\npleasant observance, as, _e.g._ (as he says himself), with plays,\nfestivals, and banquets.[98] All this we shall, with God's help,\nhereafter discuss. At present, and speaking to the subject on hand,\nwhether all kinds of offerings are made indiscriminately to all the\ngods, as if all were good (and it is an unseemly thing to conceive\nthat there are evil gods; but these gods of the pagans are all evil,\nbecause they are not gods, but evil spirits), or whether, as Labeo\nthinks, a distinction is made between the offerings presented to the\ndifferent gods, the Greeks are equally justified in honouring alike\nthe priests by whom the sacrifices are offered, and the players by\nwhom the dramas are acted, that they may not be open to the charge of\ndoing an injury to all their gods, if the plays are pleasing to all\nof them, or (which were still worse) to their good gods, if the plays\nare relished only by them.\n\n\n  12. _That the Romans, by refusing to the poets the same licence in\n      respect of men which they allowed them in the case of the gods,\n      showed a more delicate sensitiveness regarding themselves than\n      regarding the gods._\n\nThe Romans, however, as Scipio boasts in that same discussion,\ndeclined having their conduct and good name subjected to the assaults\nand slanders of the poets, and went so far as to make it a capital\ncrime if any one should dare to compose such verses. This was a\nvery honourable course to pursue, so far as they themselves were\nconcerned, but in respect of the gods it was proud and irreligious:\nfor they knew that the gods not only tolerated, but relished, being\nlashed by the injurious expressions of the poets, and yet they\nthemselves would not suffer this same handling; and what their\nritual prescribed as acceptable to the gods, their law prohibited\nas injurious to themselves. How then, Scipio, do you praise the\nRomans for refusing this licence to the poets, so that no citizen\ncould be calumniated, while you know that the gods were not included\nunder this protection? Do you count your senate-house worthy of\nso much higher a regard than the Capitol? Is the one city of Rome\nmore valuable in your eyes than the whole heaven of gods, that you\nprohibit your poets from uttering any injurious words against a\ncitizen, though they may with impunity cast what imputations they\nplease upon the gods, without the interference of senator, censor,\nprince, or pontiff? It was, forsooth, intolerable that Plautus or\nN\u00e6vius should attack Publius and Cneius Scipio, insufferable that\nC\u00e6cilius should lampoon Cato; but quite proper that your Terence\nshould encourage youthful lust by the wicked example of supreme Jove.\n\n\n  13. _That the Romans should have understood that gods who desired\n      to be worshipped in licentious entertainments were unworthy of\n      divine honour._\n\nBut Scipio, were he alive, would possibly reply: \"How could we attach\na penalty to that which the gods themselves have consecrated? For\nthe theatrical entertainments in which such things are said, and\nacted, and performed, were introduced into Roman society by the\ngods, who ordered that they should be dedicated and exhibited in\ntheir honour.\" But was not this, then, the plainest proof that they\nwere no true gods, nor in any respect worthy of receiving divine\nhonours from the republic? Suppose they had required that in their\nhonour the citizens of Rome should be held up to ridicule, every\nRoman would have resented the hateful proposal. How then, I would\nask, can they be esteemed worthy of worship, when they propose\nthat their own crimes be used as material for celebrating their\npraises? Does not this artifice expose them, and prove that they are\ndetestable devils? Thus the Romans, though they were superstitious\nenough to serve as gods those who made no secret of their desire\nto be worshipped in licentious plays, yet had sufficient regard\nto their hereditary dignity and virtue, to prompt them to refuse\nto players any such rewards as the Greeks accorded them. On this\npoint we have this testimony of Scipio, recorded in Cicero: \"They\n[the Romans] considered comedy and all theatrical performances as\ndisgraceful, and therefore not only debarred players from offices and\nhonours open to ordinary citizens, but also decreed that their names\nshould be branded by the censor, and erased from the roll of their\ntribe.\" An excellent decree, and another testimony to the sagacity\nof Rome; but I could wish their prudence had been more thoroughgoing\nand consistent. For when I hear that if any Roman citizen chose\nthe stage as his profession, he not only closed to himself every\nlaudable career, but even became an outcast from his own tribe, I\ncannot but exclaim: This is the true Roman spirit, this is worthy of\na state jealous of its reputation. But then some one interrupts my\nrapture, by inquiring with what consistency players are debarred\nfrom all honours, while plays are counted among the honours due to\nthe gods? For a long while the virtue of Rome was uncontaminated\nby theatrical exhibitions;[99] and if they had been adopted for\nthe sake of gratifying the taste of the citizens, they would have\nbeen introduced hand in hand with the relaxation of manners. But\nthe fact is, that it was the gods who demanded that they should be\nexhibited to gratify them. With what justice, then, is the player\nexcommunicated by whom God is worshipped? On what pretext can you at\nonce adore him who exacts, and brand him who acts these plays? This,\nthen, is the controversy in which the Greeks and Romans are engaged.\nThe Greeks think they justly honour players, because they worship the\ngods who demand plays: the Romans, on the other hand, do not suffer\nan actor to disgrace by his name his own plebeian tribe, far less\nthe senatorial order. And the whole of this discussion may be summed\nup in the following syllogism. The Greeks give us the major premiss:\nIf such gods are to be worshipped, then certainly such men may be\nhonoured. The Romans add the minor: But such men must by no means be\nhonoured. The Christians draw the conclusion: Therefore such gods\nmust by no means be worshipped.\n\n\n  14. _That Plato, who excluded poets from a well-ordered city, was\n      better than these gods who desire to be honoured by theatrical\n      plays._\n\nWe have still to inquire why the poets who write the plays, and who\nby the law of the twelve tables are prohibited from injuring the good\nname of the citizens, are reckoned more estimable than the actors,\nthough they so shamefully asperse the character of the gods? Is it\nright that the actors of these poetical and God-dishonouring effusions\nbe branded, while their authors are honoured? Must we not here award\nthe palm to a Greek, Plato, who, in framing his ideal republic,[100]\nconceived that poets should be banished from the city as enemies of the\nstate? He could not brook that the gods be brought into disrepute,\nnor that the minds of the citizens be depraved and besotted, by the\nfictions of the poets. Compare now human nature as you see it in\nPlato, expelling poets from the city that the citizens be uninjured,\nwith the divine nature as you see it in these gods exacting plays in\ntheir own honour. Plato strove, though unsuccessfully, to persuade the\nlight-minded and lascivious Greeks to abstain from so much as writing\nsuch plays; the gods used their authority to extort the acting of the\nsame from the dignified and sober-minded Romans. And not content with\nhaving them acted, they had them dedicated to themselves, consecrated\nto themselves, solemnly celebrated in their own honour. To which, then,\nwould it be more becoming in a state to decree divine honours,--to\nPlato, who prohibited these wicked and licentious plays, or to the\ndemons who delighted in blinding men to the truth of what Plato\nunsuccessfully sought to inculcate?\n\nThis philosopher, Plato, has been elevated by Labeo to the rank\nof a demigod, and set thus upon a level with such as Hercules and\nRomulus. Labeo ranks demigods higher than heroes, but both he counts\namong the deities. But I have no doubt that he thinks this man whom\nhe reckons a demigod worthy of greater respect not only than the\nheroes, but also than the gods themselves. The laws of the Romans\nand the speculations of Plato have this resemblance, that the latter\npronounces a wholesale condemnation of poetical fictions, while the\nformer restrain the licence of satire, at least so far as men are the\nobjects of it. Plato will not suffer poets even to dwell in his city:\nthe laws of Rome prohibit actors from being enrolled as citizens;\nand if they had not feared to offend the gods who had asked the\nservices of the players, they would in all likelihood have banished\nthem altogether. It is obvious, therefore, that the Romans could not\nreceive, nor reasonably expect to receive, laws for the regulation\nof their conduct from their gods, since the laws they themselves\nenacted far surpassed and put to shame the morality of the gods.\nThe gods demand stage-plays in their own honour; the Romans exclude\nthe players from all civic honours:[101] the former commanded that\nthey should be celebrated by the scenic representation of their own\ndisgrace; the latter commanded that no poet should dare to blemish\nthe reputation of any citizen. But that demigod Plato resisted the\nlust of such gods as these, and showed the Romans what their genius\nhad left incomplete; for he absolutely excluded poets from his ideal\nstate, whether they composed fictions with no regard to truth, or\nset the worst possible examples before wretched men under the guise\nof divine actions. We for our part, indeed, reckon Plato neither a\ngod nor a demigod; we would not even compare him to any of God's\nholy angels, nor to the truth-speaking prophets, nor to any of the\napostles or martyrs of Christ, nay, not to any faithful Christian\nman. The reason of this opinion of ours we will, God prospering\nus, render in its own place. Nevertheless, since they wish him to\nbe considered a demigod, we think he certainly is more entitled to\nthat rank, and is every way superior, if not to Hercules and Romulus\n(though no historian could ever narrate nor any poet sing of him that\nhe had killed his brother, or committed any crime), yet certainly\nto Priapus, or a Cynocephalus,[102] or the Fever,[103]--divinities\nwhom the Romans have partly received from foreigners, and partly\nconsecrated by home-grown rites. How, then, could gods such as these\nbe expected to promulgate good and wholesome laws, either for the\nprevention of moral and social evils, or for their eradication where\nthey had already sprung up?--gods who used their influence even to\nsow and cherish profligacy, by appointing that deeds truly or falsely\nascribed to them should be published to the people by means of\ntheatrical exhibitions, and by thus gratuitously fanning the flame of\nhuman lust with the breath of a seemingly divine approbation. In vain\ndoes Cicero, speaking of poets, exclaim against this state of things\nin these words: \"When the plaudits and acclamation of the people,\nwho sit as infallible judges, are won by the poets, what darkness\nbenights the mind, what fears invade, what passions inflame it!\"[104]\n\n\n    15. _That it was vanity, not reason, which created some of the\n                             Roman gods._\n\nBut is it not manifest that vanity rather than reason regulated the\nchoice of some of their false gods? This Plato, whom they reckon a\ndemigod, and who used all his eloquence to preserve men from the\nmost dangerous spiritual calamities, has yet not been counted worthy\neven of a little shrine; but Romulus, because they can call him\ntheir own, they have esteemed more highly than many gods, though\ntheir secret doctrine can allow him the rank only of a demigod. To\nhim they allotted a flamen, that is to say, a priest of a class so\nhighly esteemed in their religion (distinguished, too, by their\nconical mitres), that for only three of their gods were flamens\nappointed--the Flamen Dialis for Jupiter, Martialis for Mars, and\nQuirinalis for Romulus (for when the ardour of his fellow-citizens\nhad given Romulus a seat among the gods, they gave him this new name\nQuirinus). And thus by this honour Romulus has been preferred to\nNeptune and Pluto, Jupiter's brothers, and to Saturn himself, their\nfather. They have assigned the same priesthood to serve him as to\nserve Jove; and in giving Mars (the reputed father of Romulus) the\nsame honour, is this not rather for Romulus' sake than to honour Mars?\n\n\n  16. _That if the gods had really possessed any regard for\n      righteousness, the Romans should have received good laws from\n      them, instead of having to borrow them from other nations._\n\nMoreover, if the Romans had been able to receive a rule of life\nfrom their gods, they would not have borrowed Solon's laws from\nthe Athenians, as they did some years after Rome was founded; and\nyet they did not keep them as they received them, but endeavoured\nto improve and amend them.[105] Although Lycurgus pretended that\nhe was authorized by Apollo to give laws to the Lacedemonians, the\nsensible Romans did not choose to believe this, and were not induced\nto borrow laws from Sparta. Numa Pompilius, who succeeded Romulus\nin the kingdom, is said to have framed some laws, which, however,\nwere not sufficient for the regulation of civic affairs. Among these\nregulations were many pertaining to religious observances, and yet\nhe is not reported to have received even these from the gods. With\nrespect, then, to moral evils, evils of life and conduct,--evils\nwhich are so mighty, that, according to the wisest pagans,[106] by\nthem states are ruined while their cities stand uninjured,--their\ngods made not the smallest provision for preserving their worshippers\nfrom these evils, but, on the contrary, took special pains to\nincrease them, as we have previously endeavoured to prove.\n\n\n      17. _Of the rape of the Sabine women, and other iniquities\n                 perpetrated in Rome's palmiest days._\n\nBut possibly we are to find the reason for this neglect of the\nRomans by their gods, in the saying of Sallust, that \"equity and\nvirtue prevailed among the Romans not more by force of laws than of\nnature.\"[107] I presume it is to this inborn equity and goodness of\ndisposition we are to ascribe the rape of the Sabine women. What,\nindeed, could be more equitable and virtuous, than to carry off by\nforce, as each man was fit, and without their parents' consent,\ngirls who were strangers and guests, and who had been decoyed and\nentrapped by the pretence of a spectacle! If the Sabines were wrong\nto deny their daughters when the Romans asked for them, was it not\na greater wrong in the Romans to carry them off after that denial?\nThe Romans might more justly have waged war against the neighbouring\nnation for having refused their daughters in marriage when they first\nsought them, than for having demanded them back when they had stolen\nthem. War should have been proclaimed at first: it was then that Mars\nshould have helped his warlike son, that he might by force of arms\navenge the injury done him by the refusal of marriage, and might also\nthus win the women he desired. There might have been some appearance\nof \"right of war\" in a victor carrying off, in virtue of this right,\nthe virgins who had been without any show of right denied him;\nwhereas there was no \"right of peace\" entitling him to carry off\nthose who were not given to him, and to wage an unjust war with their\njustly enraged parents. One happy circumstance was indeed connected\nwith this act of violence, viz., that though it was commemorated\nby the games of the circus, yet even this did not constitute it a\nprecedent in the city or realm of Rome. If one would find fault with\nthe results of this act, it must rather be on the ground that the\nRomans made Romulus a god in spite of his perpetrating this iniquity;\nfor one cannot reproach them with making this deed any kind of\nprecedent for the rape of women.\n\nAgain, I presume it was due to this natural equity and virtue, that\nafter the expulsion of King Tarquin, whose son had violated Lucretia,\nJunius Brutus the consul forced Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus,\nLucretia's husband and his own colleague, a good and innocent man,\nto resign his office and go into banishment, on the one sole charge\nthat he was of the name and blood of the Tarquins. This injustice was\nperpetrated with the approval, or at least connivance, of the people,\nwho had themselves raised to the consular office both Collatinus\nand Brutus. Another instance of this equity and virtue is found in\ntheir treatment of Marcus Camillus. This eminent man, after he had\nrapidly conquered the Veians, at that time the most formidable of\nRome's enemies, and who had maintained a ten years' war, in which\nthe Roman army had suffered the usual calamities attendant on bad\ngeneralship, after he had restored security to Rome, which had begun\nto tremble for its safety, and after he had taken the wealthiest\ncity of the enemy, had charges brought against him by the malice of\nthose that envied his success, and by the insolence of the tribunes\nof the people; and seeing that the city bore him no gratitude for\npreserving it, and that he would certainly be condemned, he went into\nexile, and even in his absence was fined 10,000 asses. Shortly after,\nhowever, his ungrateful country had again to seek his protection from\nthe Gauls. But I cannot now mention all the shameful and iniquitous\nacts with which Rome was agitated, when the aristocracy attempted to\nsubject the people, and the people resented their encroachments, and\nthe advocates of either party were actuated rather by the love of\nvictory than by any equitable or virtuous consideration.\n\n\n  18. _What the history of Sallust reveals regarding the life of the\n      Romans, either when straitened by anxiety or relaxed in security._\n\nI will therefore pause, and adduce the testimony of Sallust himself,\nwhose words in praise of the Romans (that \"equity and virtue\nprevailed among them not more by force of laws than of nature\")\nhave given occasion to this discussion. He was referring to that\nperiod immediately after the expulsion of the kings, in which the\ncity became great in an incredibly short space of time. And yet this\nsame writer acknowledges in the first book of his history, in the\nvery exordium of his work, that even at that time, when a very brief\ninterval had elapsed after the government had passed from kings to\nconsuls, the more powerful men began to act unjustly, and occasioned\nthe defection of the people from the patricians, and other disorders\nin the city. For after Sallust had stated that the Romans enjoyed\ngreater harmony and a purer state of society between the second and\nthird Punic wars than at any other time, and that the cause of this\nwas not their love of good order, but their fear lest the peace\nthey had with Carthage might be broken (this also, as we mentioned,\nNasica contemplated when he opposed the destruction of Carthage,\nfor he supposed that fear would tend to repress wickedness, and to\npreserve wholesome ways of living), he then goes on to say: \"Yet,\nafter the destruction of Carthage, discord, avarice, ambition, and\nthe other vices which are commonly generated by prosperity, more\nthan ever increased.\" If they \"increased,\" and that \"more than\never,\" then already they had appeared, and had been increasing. And\nso Sallust adds this reason for what he said. \"For,\" he says, \"the\noppressive measures of the powerful, and the consequent secessions\nof the plebs from the patricians, and other civil dissensions, had\nexisted from the first, and affairs were administered with equity\nand well-tempered justice for no longer a period than the short\ntime after the expulsion of the kings, while the city was occupied\nwith the serious Tuscan war and Tarquin's vengeance.\" You see how,\neven in that brief period after the expulsion of the kings, fear,\nhe acknowledges, was the cause of the interval of equity and good\norder. They were afraid, in fact, of the war which Tarquin waged\nagainst them, after he had been driven from the throne and the city,\nand had allied himself with the Tuscans. But observe what he adds:\n\"After that, the patricians treated the people as their slaves,\nordering them to be scourged or beheaded just as the kings had done,\ndriving them from their holdings, and harshly tyrannizing over\nthose who had no property to lose. The people, overwhelmed by these\noppressive measures, and most of all by exorbitant usury, and obliged\nto contribute both money and personal service to the constant wars,\nat length took arms, and seceded to Mount Aventine and Mount Sacer,\nand thus obtained for themselves tribunes and protective laws. But\nit was only the second Punic war that put an end on both sides to\ndiscord and strife.\" You see what kind of men the Romans were, even\nso early as a few years after the expulsion of the kings; and it is\nof these men he says, that \"equity and virtue prevailed among them\nnot more by force of law than of nature.\"\n\nNow, if these were the days in which the Roman republic shows fairest\nand best, what are we to say or think of the succeeding age, when,\nto use the words of the same historian, \"changing little by little\nfrom the fair and virtuous city it was, it became utterly wicked\nand dissolute?\" This was, as he mentions, after the destruction of\nCarthage. Sallust's brief sum and sketch of this period may be read in\nhis own history, in which he shows how the profligate manners which\nwere propagated by prosperity resulted at last even in civil wars. He\nsays: \"And from this time the primitive manners, instead of undergoing\nan insensible alteration as hitherto they had done, were swept away as\nby a torrent: the young men were so depraved by luxury and avarice,\nthat it may justly be said that no father had a son who could either\npreserve his own patrimony, or keep his hands off other men's.\" Sallust\nadds a number of particulars about the vices of Sylla, and the debased\ncondition of the republic in general; and other writers make similar\nobservations, though in much less striking language.\n\nHowever, I suppose you now see, or at least any one who gives his\nattention has the means of seeing, in what a sink of iniquity\nthat city was plunged before the advent of our heavenly King. For\nthese things happened not only before Christ had begun to teach,\nbut before He was even born of the Virgin. If, then, they dare not\nimpute to their gods the grievous evils of those former times, more\ntolerable before the destruction of Carthage, but intolerable and\ndreadful after it, although it was the gods who by their malign craft\ninstilled into the minds of men the conceptions from which such\ndreadful vices branched out on all sides, why do they impute these\npresent calamities to Christ, who teaches life-giving truth, and\nforbids us to worship false and deceitful gods, and who, abominating\nand condemning with His divine authority those wicked and hurtful\nlusts of men, gradually withdraws His own people from a world that is\ncorrupted by these vices, and is falling into ruins, to make of them\nan eternal city, whose glory rests not on the acclamations of vanity,\nbut on the judgment of truth?\n\n\n    19. _Of the corruption which had grown upon the Roman republic\n           before Christ abolished the worship of the gods._\n\nHere, then, is this Roman republic, \"which has changed little by\nlittle from the fair and virtuous city it was, and has become utterly\nwicked and dissolute.\" It is not I who am the first to say this, but\ntheir own authors, from whom we learned it for a fee, and who wrote\nit long before the coming of Christ. You see how, before the coming\nof Christ, and after the destruction of Carthage, \"the primitive\nmanners, instead of undergoing insensible alteration, as hitherto\nthey had done, were swept away as by a torrent; and how depraved by\nluxury and avarice the youth were.\" Let them now, on their part, read\nto us any laws given by their gods to the Roman people, and directed\nagainst luxury and avarice. And would that they had only been silent\non the subjects of chastity and modesty, and had not demanded from\nthe people indecent and shameful practices, to which they lent a\npernicious patronage by their so-called divinity. Let them read\nour commandments in the Prophets, Gospels, Acts of the Apostles,\nor Epistles; let them peruse the large number of precepts against\navarice and luxury which are everywhere read to the congregations\nthat meet for this purpose, and which strike the ear, not with the\nuncertain sound of a philosophical discussion, but with the thunder\nof God's own oracle pealing from the clouds. And yet they do not\nimpute to their gods the luxury and avarice, the cruel and dissolute\nmanners, that had rendered the republic utterly wicked and corrupt,\neven before the coming of Christ; but whatever affliction their\npride and effeminacy have exposed them to in these latter days,\nthey furiously impute to our religion. If the kings of the earth\nand all their subjects, if all princes and judges of the earth, if\nyoung men and maidens, old and young, every age, and both sexes; if\nthey whom the Baptist addressed, the publicans and the soldiers,\nwere all together to hearken to and observe the precepts of the\nChristian religion regarding a just and virtuous life, then should\nthe republic adorn the whole earth with its own felicity, and attain\nin life everlasting to the pinnacle of kingly glory. But because\nthis man listens, and that man scoffs, and most are enamoured of the\nblandishments of vice rather than the wholesome severity of virtue,\nthe people of Christ, whatever be their condition--whether they be\nkings, princes, judges, soldiers, or provincials, rich or poor,\nbond or free, male or female--are enjoined to endure this earthly\nrepublic, wicked and dissolute as it is, that so they may by this\nendurance win for themselves an eminent place in that most holy and\naugust assembly of angels and republic of heaven, in which the will\nof God is the law.\n\n\n  20. _Of the kind of happiness and life truly delighted in by those\n             who inveigh against the Christian religion._\n\nBut the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight in imitating\ntheir scandalous iniquities, and are nowise concerned that the\nrepublic be less depraved and licentious. Only let it remain\nundefeated, they say, only let it flourish and abound in resources;\nlet it be glorious by its victories, or still better, secure in\npeace; and what matters it to us? This is our concern, that every\nman be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily\nprodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for\ntheir own purposes. Let the poor court the rich for a living, and\nthat under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity;\nand let the rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister\nto their pride. Let the people applaud not those who protect their\ninterests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe\nduty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their\nprosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their\nsubjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral\nguides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their\npleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile\nfear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to\nanother man's property, than of that done to one's own person.\nIf a man be a nuisance to his neighbour, or injure his property,\nfamily, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs\nlet every one with impunity do what he will in company with his\nown family, and with those who willingly join him. Let there be a\nplentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one who wishes to\nuse them, but specially for those who are too poor to keep one for\ntheir private use. Let there be erected houses of the largest and\nmost ornate description: in these let there be provided the most\nsumptuous banquets, where every one who pleases may, by day or night,\nplay, drink, vomit,[108] dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard\nthe rustling of dancers, the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre;\nlet a succession of the most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures\nmaintain a perpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful\nto any, let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt to\nmodify or put an end to it, let him be silenced, banished, put an end\nto. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procure for the people\nthis condition of things, and preserve it when once possessed. Let\nthem be worshipped as they wish; let them demand whatever games they\nplease, from or with their own worshippers; only let them secure\nthat such felicity be not imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of\nany kind. What sane man would compare a republic such as this, I\nwill not say to the Roman empire, but to the palace of Sardanapalus,\nthe ancient king who was so abandoned to pleasures, that he caused\nit to be inscribed on his tomb, that now that he was dead, he\npossessed only those things which he had swallowed and consumed by\nhis appetites while alive? If these men had such a king as this, who,\nwhile self-indulgent, should lay no severe restraint on them, they\nwould more enthusiastically consecrate to him a temple and a flamen\nthan the ancient Romans did to Romulus.\n\n\n             21. _Cicero's opinion of the Roman republic._\n\nBut if our adversaries do not care how foully and disgracefully\nthe Roman republic be stained by corrupt practices, so long only\nas it holds together and continues in being, and if they therefore\npooh-pooh the testimony of Sallust to its \"utterly wicked and\nprofligate\" condition, what will they make of Cicero's statement,\nthat even in his time it had become entirely extinct, and that there\nremained extant no Roman republic at all? He introduces Scipio (the\nScipio who had destroyed Carthage) discussing the republic, at a time\nwhen already there were presentiments of its speedy ruin by that\ncorruption which Sallust describes. In fact, at the time when the\ndiscussion took place, one of the Gracchi, who, according to Sallust,\nwas the first great instigator of seditions, had already been put to\ndeath. His death, indeed, is mentioned in the same book. Now Scipio,\nin the end of the second book, says: \"As, among the different sounds\nwhich proceed from lyres, flutes, and the human voice, there must be\nmaintained a certain harmony which a cultivated ear cannot endure\nto hear disturbed or jarring, but which may be elicited in full and\nabsolute concord by the modulation even of voices very unlike one\nanother; so, where reason is allowed to modulate the diverse elements\nof the state, there is obtained a perfect concord from the upper,\nlower, and middle classes as from various sounds; and what musicians\ncall harmony in singing, is concord in matters of state, which is the\nstrictest bond and best security of any republic, and which by no\ningenuity can be retained where justice has become extinct.\" Then,\nwhen he had expatiated somewhat more fully, and had more copiously\nillustrated the benefits of its presence and the ruinous effects\nof its absence upon a state, Pilus, one of the company present at\nthe discussion, struck in and demanded that the question should be\nmore thoroughly sifted, and that the subject of justice should be\nfreely discussed for the sake of ascertaining what truth there was\nin the maxim which was then becoming daily more current, that \"the\nrepublic cannot be governed without injustice.\" Scipio expressed\nhis willingness to have this maxim discussed and sifted, and gave\nit as his opinion that it was baseless, and that no progress could\nbe made in discussing the republic unless it was established, not\nonly that this maxim, that \"the republic cannot be governed without\ninjustice,\" was false, but also that the truth is, that it cannot\nbe governed without the most absolute justice. And the discussion\nof this question, being deferred till the next day, is carried on\nin the third book with great animation. For Pilus himself undertook\nto defend the position that the republic cannot be governed without\ninjustice, at the same time being at special pains to clear himself\nof any real participation in that opinion. He advocated with great\nkeenness the cause of injustice against justice, and endeavoured\nby plausible reasons and examples to demonstrate that the former\nis beneficial, the latter useless, to the republic. Then, at the\nrequest of the company, L\u00e6lius attempted to defend justice, and\nstrained every nerve to prove that nothing is so hurtful to a state\nas injustice; and that without justice a republic can neither be\ngoverned, nor even continue to exist.\n\nWhen this question has been handled to the satisfaction of the\ncompany, Scipio reverts to the original thread of discourse, and\nrepeats with commendation his own brief definition of a republic,\nthat it is the weal of the people. \"The people\" he defines as being\nnot every assemblage or mob, but an assemblage associated by a common\nacknowledgment of law, and by a community of interests. Then he shows\nthe use of definition in debate; and from these definitions of his\nown he gathers that a republic, or \"weal of the people,\" then exists\nonly when it is well and justly governed, whether by a monarch, or an\naristocracy, or by the whole people. But when the monarch is unjust,\nor, as the Greeks say, a tyrant; or the aristocrats are unjust, and\nform a faction; or the people themselves are unjust, and become, as\nScipio for want of a better name calls them, themselves the tyrant,\nthen the republic is not only blemished (as had been proved the day\nbefore), but by legitimate deduction from those definitions, it\naltogether ceases to be. For it could not be the people's weal when a\ntyrant factiously lorded it over the state; neither would the people\nbe any longer a people if it were unjust, since it would no longer\nanswer the definition of a people--\"an assemblage associated by a\ncommon acknowledgment of law, and by a community of interests.\"\n\nWhen, therefore, the Roman republic was such as Sallust described\nit, it was not \"utterly wicked and profligate,\" as he says, but had\naltogether ceased to exist, if we are to admit the reasoning of\nthat debate maintained on the subject of the republic by its best\nrepresentatives. Tully himself, too, speaking not in the person\nof Scipio or any one else, but uttering his own sentiments, uses\nthe following language in the beginning of the fifth book, after\nquoting a line from the poet Ennius, in which he said, \"Rome's severe\nmorality and her citizens are her safeguard.\" \"This verse,\" says\nCicero, \"seems to me to have all the sententious truthfulness of\nan oracle. For neither would the citizens have availed without the\nmorality of the community, nor would the morality of the commons\nwithout outstanding men have availed either to establish or so long\nto maintain in vigour so grand a republic with so wide and just an\nempire. Accordingly, before our day, the hereditary usages formed\nour foremost men, and they on their part retained the usages and\ninstitutions of their fathers. But our age, receiving the republic as\na _chef-d'\u0153uvre_ of another age which has already begun to grow old,\nhas not merely neglected to restore the colours of the original, but\nhas not even been at the pains to preserve so much as the general\noutline and most outstanding features. For what survives of that\nprimitive morality which the poet called Rome's safeguard? It is\nso obsolete and forgotten, that, far from practising it, one does\nnot even know it. And of the citizens what shall I say? Morality\nhas perished through poverty of great men; a poverty for which we\nmust not only assign a reason, but for the guilt of which we must\nanswer as criminals charged with a capital crime. For it is through\nour vices, and not by any mishap, that we retain only the name of a\nrepublic, and have long since lost the reality.\"\n\nThis is the confession of Cicero, long indeed after the death of\nAfricanus, whom he introduced as an interlocutor in his work _De\nRepublica_, but still before the coming of Christ. Yet, if the\ndisasters he bewails had been lamented after the Christian religion\nhad been diffused, and had begun to prevail, is there a man of our\nadversaries who would not have thought that they were to be imputed\nto the Christians? Why, then, did their gods not take steps then to\nprevent the decay and extinction of that republic, over the loss of\nwhich Cicero, long before Christ had come in the flesh, sings so\nlugubrious a dirge? Its admirers have need to inquire whether, even\nin the days of primitive men and morals, true justice flourished in\nit; or was it not perhaps even then, to use the casual expression\nof Cicero, rather a coloured painting than the living reality?\nBut, if God will, we shall consider this elsewhere. For I mean in\nits own place to show that--according to the definitions in which\nCicero himself, using Scipio as his mouthpiece, briefly propounded\nwhat a republic is, and what a people is, and according to many\ntestimonies, both of his own lips and of those who took part in that\nsame debate--Rome never was a republic, because true justice had\nnever a place in it. But accepting the more feasible definitions\nof a republic, I grant there was a republic of a certain kind, and\ncertainly much better administered by the more ancient Romans than by\ntheir modern representatives. But the fact is, true justice has no\nexistence save in that republic whose founder and ruler is Christ,\nif at least any choose to call this a republic; and indeed we cannot\ndeny that it is the people's weal. But if perchance this name, which\nhas become familiar in other connections, be considered alien to our\ncommon parlance, we may at all events say that in this city is true\njustice; the city of which Holy Scripture says, \"Glorious things are\nsaid of thee, O city of God.\"\n\n\n     22. _That the Roman gods never took any steps to prevent the\n              republic from being ruined by immorality._\n\nBut what is relevant to the present question is this, that however\nadmirable our adversaries say the republic was or is, it is certain\nthat by the testimony of their own most learned writers it had\nbecome, long before the coming of Christ, utterly wicked and\ndissolute, and indeed had no existence, but had been destroyed by\nprofligacy. To prevent this, surely these guardian gods ought to have\ngiven precepts of morals and a rule of life to the people by whom\nthey were worshipped in so many temples, with so great a variety of\npriests and sacrifices, with such numberless and diverse rites, so\nmany festal solemnities, so many celebrations of magnificent games.\nBut in all this the demons only looked after their own interest,\nand cared not at all how their worshippers lived, or rather were at\npains to induce them to lead an abandoned life, so long as they paid\nthese tributes to their honour, and regarded them with fear. If any\none denies this, let him produce, let him point to, let him read the\nlaws which the gods had given against sedition, and which the Gracchi\ntransgressed when they threw everything into confusion; or those\nMarius, and Cinna, and Carbo broke when they involved their country\nin civil wars, most iniquitous and unjustifiable in their causes,\ncruelly conducted, and yet more cruelly terminated; or those which\nSylla scorned, whose life, character, and deeds, as described by\nSallust and other historians, are the abhorrence of all mankind. Who\nwill deny that at that time the republic had become extinct?\n\nPossibly they will be bold enough to suggest in defence of the gods,\nthat they abandoned the city on account of the profligacy of the\ncitizens, according to the lines of Virgil:\n\n          \"Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,\n           Are those who made this realm divine.\"[109]\n\nBut, firstly, if it be so, then they cannot complain against the\nChristian religion, as if it were that which gave offence to the\ngods and caused them to abandon Rome, since the Roman immorality had\nlong ago driven from the altars of the city a cloud of little gods,\nlike as many flies. And yet where was this host of divinities, when,\nlong before the corruption of the primitive morality, Rome was taken\nand burnt by the Gauls? Perhaps they were present, but asleep? For\nat that time the whole city fell into the hands of the enemy, with\nthe single exception of the Capitoline hill; and this too would have\nbeen taken, had not--the watchful geese aroused the sleeping gods!\nAnd this gave occasion to the festival of the goose, in which Rome\nsank nearly to the superstition of the Egyptians, who worship beasts\nand birds. But of these adventitious evils which are inflicted by\nhostile armies or by some disaster, and which attach rather to the\nbody than the soul, I am not meanwhile disputing. At present I speak\nof the decay of morality, which at first almost imperceptibly lost\nits brilliant hue, but afterwards was wholly obliterated, was swept\naway as by a torrent, and involved the republic in such disastrous\nruin, that though the houses and walls remained standing, the leading\nwriters do not scruple to say that the republic was destroyed. Now,\nthe departure of the gods \"from each fane, each sacred shrine,\" and\ntheir abandonment of the city to destruction, was an act of justice,\nif their laws inculcating justice and a moral life had been held in\ncontempt by that city. But what kind of gods were these, pray, who\ndeclined to live with a people who worshipped them, and whose corrupt\nlife they had done nothing to reform?\n\n\n     23. _That the vicissitudes of this life are dependent not on\n the favour or hostility of demons, but on the will of the true God._\n\nBut, further, is it not obvious that the gods have abetted the\nfulfilment of men's desires, instead of authoritatively bridling them?\nFor Marius, a low-born and self-made man, who ruthlessly provoked and\nconducted civil wars, was so effectually aided by them, that he was\nseven times consul, and died full of years in his seventh consulship,\nescaping the hands of Sylla, who immediately afterwards came into\npower. Why, then, did they not also aid him, so as to restrain him from\nso many enormities? For if it is said that the gods had no hand in\nhis success, this is no trivial admission, that a man can attain the\ndearly coveted felicity of this life even though his own gods be not\npropitious; that men can be loaded with the gifts of fortune as Marius\nwas, can enjoy health, power, wealth, honours, dignity, length of days,\nthough the gods be hostile to him; and that, on the other hand, men\ncan be tormented as Regulus was, with captivity, bondage, destitution,\nwatchings, pain, and cruel death, though the gods be his friends. To\nconcede this is to make a compendious confession that the gods are\nuseless, and their worship superfluous. If the gods have taught the\npeople rather what goes clean counter to the virtues of the soul, and\nthat integrity of life which meets a reward after death; if even in\nrespect of temporal and transitory blessings they neither hurt those\nwhom they hate nor profit whom they love, why are they worshipped, why\nare they invoked with such eager homage? Why do men murmur in difficult\nand sad emergencies, as if the gods had retired in anger? and why, on\ntheir account, is the Christian religion injured by the most unworthy\ncalumnies? If in temporal matters they have power either for good or\nfor evil, why did they stand by Marius, the worst of Rome's citizens,\nand abandon Regulus, the best? Does this not prove themselves to be\nmost unjust and wicked? And even if it be supposed that for this\nvery reason they are the rather to be feared and worshipped, this\nis a mistake; for we do not read that Regulus worshipped them less\nassiduously than Marius. Neither is it apparent that a wicked life is\nto be chosen, on the ground that the gods are supposed to have favoured\nMarius more than Regulus. For Metellus, the most highly esteemed of\nall the Romans, who had five sons in the consulship, was prosperous\neven in this life; and Catiline, the worst of men, reduced to poverty\nand defeated in the war his own guilt had aroused, lived and perished\nmiserably. Real and secure felicity is the peculiar possession of those\nwho worship that God by whom alone it can be conferred.\n\nIt is thus apparent, that when the republic was being destroyed by\nprofligate manners, its gods did nothing to hinder its destruction by\nthe direction or correction of its manners, but rather accelerated\nits destruction by increasing the demoralization and corruption\nthat already existed. They need not pretend that their goodness was\nshocked by the iniquity of the city, and that they withdrew in anger.\nFor they were there, sure enough; they are detected, convicted:\nthey were equally unable to break silence so as to guide others,\nand to keep silence so as to conceal themselves. I do not dwell on\nthe fact that the inhabitants of Minturn\u00e6 took pity on Marius, and\ncommended him to the goddess Marica in her grove, that she might\ngive him success in all things, and that from the abyss of despair\nin which he then lay he forthwith returned unhurt to Rome, and\nentered the city the ruthless leader of a ruthless army; and they\nwho wish to know how bloody was his victory, how unlike a citizen,\nand how much more relentlessly than any foreign foe he acted, let\nthem read the histories. But this, as I said, I do not dwell upon;\nnor do I attribute the bloody bliss of Marius to, I know not what\nMinturnian goddess [Marica], but rather to the secret providence of\nGod, that the mouths of our adversaries might be shut, and that they\nwho are not led by passion, but by prudent consideration of events,\nmight be delivered from error. And even if the demons have any\npower in these matters, they have only that power which the secret\ndecree of the Almighty allots to them, in order that we may not\nset too great store by earthly prosperity, seeing it is oftentimes\nvouchsafed even to wicked men like Marius; and that we may not, on\nthe other hand, regard it as an evil, since we see that many good and\npious worshippers of the one true God are, in spite of the demons,\npre-eminently successful; and, finally, that we may not suppose that\nthese unclean spirits are either to be propitiated or feared for the\nsake of earthly blessings or calamities: for as wicked men on earth\ncannot do all they would, so neither can these demons, but only in so\nfar as they are permitted by the decree of Him whose judgments are\nfully comprehensible, justly reprehensible by none.\n\n\n    24. _Of the deeds of Sylla, in which the demons boasted that he\n                           had their help._\n\nIt is certain that Sylla--whose rule was so cruel, that, in\ncomparison with it, the preceding state of things which he came\nto avenge was regretted--when first he advanced towards Rome to\ngive battle to Marius, found the auspices so favourable when he\nsacrificed, that, according to Livy's account, the augur Postumius\nexpressed his willingness to lose his head if Sylla did not, with the\nhelp of the gods, accomplish what he designed. The gods, you see, had\nnot departed from \"every fane and sacred shrine,\" since they were\nstill predicting the issue of these affairs, and yet were taking no\nsteps to correct Sylla himself. Their presages promised him great\nprosperity, but no threatenings of theirs subdued his evil passions.\nAnd then, when he was in Asia conducting the war against Mithridates,\na message from Jupiter was delivered to him by Lucius Titius, to the\neffect that he would conquer Mithridates; and so it came to pass.\nAnd afterwards, when he was meditating a return to Rome for the\npurpose of avenging in the blood of the citizens injuries done to\nhimself and his friends, a second message from Jupiter was delivered\nto him by a soldier of the sixth legion, to the effect that it was\nhe who had predicted the victory over Mithridates, and that now he\npromised to give him power to recover the republic from his enemies,\nthough with great bloodshed. Sylla at once inquired of the soldier\nwhat form had appeared to him; and, on his reply, recognised that it\nwas the same as Jupiter had formerly employed to convey to him the\nassurance regarding the victory over Mithridates. How, then, can the\ngods be justified in this matter for the care they took to predict\nthese shadowy successes, and for their negligence in correcting\nSylla, and restraining him from stirring up a civil war so lamentable\nand atrocious, that it not merely disfigured, but extinguished,\nthe republic? The truth is, as I have often said, and as Scripture\ninforms us, and as the facts themselves sufficiently indicate, the\ndemons are found to look after their own ends only, that they may\nbe regarded and worshipped as gods, and that men may be induced to\noffer to them a worship which associates them with their crimes, and\ninvolves them in one common wickedness and judgment of God.\n\nAfterwards, when Sylla had come to Tarentum, and had sacrificed\nthere, he saw on the head of the victim's liver the likeness of a\ngolden crown. Thereupon the same soothsayer Postumius interpreted\nthis to signify a signal victory, and ordered that he only should eat\nof the entrails. A little afterwards, the slave of a certain Lucius\nPontius cried out, \"I am Bellona's messenger; the victory is yours,\nSylla!\" Then he added that the Capitol should be burned. As soon as\nhe had uttered this prediction he left the camp, but returned the\nfollowing day more excited than ever, and shouted, \"The Capitol is\nfired!\" And fired indeed it was. This it was easy for a demon both\nto foresee and quickly to announce. But observe, as relevant to\nour subject, what kind of gods they are under whom these men desire\nto live, who blaspheme the Saviour that delivers the wills of the\nfaithful from the dominion of devils. The man cried out in prophetic\nrapture, \"The victory is yours, Sylla!\" And to certify that he spoke\nby a divine spirit, he predicted also an event which was shortly to\nhappen, and which indeed did fall out, in a place from which he in\nwhom this spirit was speaking was far distant. But he never cried,\nForbear thy villanies, Sylla!--the villanies which were committed at\nRome by that victor to whom a golden crown on the calf's liver had\nbeen shown as the divine evidence of his victory. If such signs as\nthis were customarily sent by just gods, and not by wicked demons,\nthen certainly the entrails he consulted should rather have given\nSylla intimation of the cruel disasters that were to befall the city\nand himself. For that victory was not so conducive to his exaltation\nto power, as it was fatal to his ambition; for by it he became so\ninsatiable in his desires, and was rendered so arrogant and reckless\nby prosperity, that he may be said rather to have inflicted a moral\ndestruction on himself than corporal destruction on his enemies. But\nthese truly woful and deplorable calamities the gods gave him no\nprevious hint of, neither by entrails, augury, dream, nor prediction.\nFor they feared his amendment more than his defeat. Yea, they took\ngood care that this glorious conqueror of his own fellow-citizens\nshould be conquered and led captive by his own infamous vices, and\nshould thus be the more submissive slave of the demons themselves.\n\n\n  25. _How powerfully the evil spirits incite men to wicked actions,\n     by giving them the quasi-divine authority of their example._\n\nNow, who does not hereby comprehend,--unless he has preferred to\nimitate such gods rather than by divine grace to withdraw himself\nfrom their fellowship,--who does not see how eagerly these evil\nspirits strive by their example to lend, as it were, divine authority\nto crime? Is not this proved by the fact that they were seen in a\nwide plain in Campania rehearsing among themselves the battle which\nshortly after took place there with great bloodshed between the\narmies of Rome? For at first there were heard loud crashing noises,\nand afterwards many reported that they had seen for some days\ntogether two armies engaged. And when this battle ceased, they found\nthe ground all indented with just such footprints of men and horses\nas a great conflict would leave. If, then, the deities were veritably\nfighting with one another, the civil wars of men are sufficiently\njustified; yet, by the way, let it be observed that such pugnacious\ngods must be very wicked or very wretched. If, however, it was but\na sham-fight, what did they intend by this, but that the civil wars\nof the Romans should seem no wickedness, but an imitation of the\ngods? For already the civil wars had begun; and before this, some\nlamentable battles and execrable massacres had occurred. Already\nmany had been moved by the story of the soldier, who, on stripping\nthe spoils of his slain foe, recognised in the stripped corpse his\nown brother, and, with deep curses on civil wars, slew himself there\nand then on his brother's body. To disguise the bitterness of such\ntragedies, and kindle increasing ardour in this monstrous warfare,\nthese malign demons, who were reputed and worshipped as gods, fell\nupon this plan of revealing themselves in a state of civil war,\nthat no compunction for fellow-citizens might cause the Romans to\nshrink from such battles, but that the human criminality might be\njustified by the divine example. By a like craft, too, did these\nevil spirits command that scenic entertainments, of which I have\nalready spoken, should be instituted and dedicated to them. And in\nthese entertainments the poetical compositions and actions of the\ndrama ascribed such iniquities to the gods, that every one might\nsafely imitate them, whether he believed the gods had actually done\nsuch things, or, not believing this, yet perceived that they most\neagerly desired to be represented as having done them. And that no\none might suppose, that in representing the gods as fighting with one\nanother, the poets had slandered them, and imputed to them unworthy\nactions, the gods themselves, to complete the deception, confirmed\nthe compositions of the poets by exhibiting their own battles to the\neyes of men, not only through actions in the theatres, but in their\nown persons on the actual field.\n\nWe have been forced to bring forward these facts, because their\nauthors have not scrupled to say and to write that the Roman\nrepublic had already been ruined by the depraved moral habits of\nthe citizens, and had ceased to exist before the advent of our Lord\nJesus Christ. Now this ruin they do not impute to their own gods,\nthough they impute to our Christ the evils of this life, which cannot\nruin good men, be they alive or dead. And this they do, though our\nChrist has issued so many precepts inculcating virtue and restraining\nvice; while their own gods have done nothing whatever to preserve\nthat republic that served them, and to restrain it from ruin by such\nprecepts, but have rather hastened its destruction, by corrupting its\nmorality through their pestilent example. No one, I fancy, will now\nbe bold enough to say that the republic was then ruined because of\nthe departure of the gods \"from each fane, each sacred shrine,\" as\nif they were the friends of virtue, and were offended by the vices\nof men. No, there are too many presages from entrails, auguries,\nsoothsayings, whereby they boastingly proclaimed themselves prescient\nof future events and controllers of the fortune of war,--all which\nprove them to have been present. And had they been indeed absent, the\nRomans would never in these civil wars have been so far transported\nby their own passions as they were by the instigations of these gods.\n\n\n  26. _That the demons gave in secret certain obscure instructions in\n      morals, while in public their own solemnities inculcated all\n      wickedness._\n\nSeeing that this is so,--seeing that the filthy and cruel deeds,\nthe disgraceful and criminal actions of the gods, whether real or\nfeigned, were at their own request published, and were consecrated,\nand dedicated in their honour as sacred and stated solemnities;\nseeing they vowed vengeance on those who refused to exhibit them\nto the eyes of all, that they might be proposed as deeds worthy of\nimitation, why is it that these same demons, who, by taking pleasure\nin such obscenities, acknowledge themselves to be unclean spirits,\nand by delighting in their own villanies and iniquities, real or\nimaginary, and by requesting from the immodest, and extorting from\nthe modest, the celebration of these licentious acts, proclaim\nthemselves instigators to a criminal and lewd life;--why, I ask, are\nthey represented as giving some good moral precepts to a few of their\nown elect, initiated in the secrecy of their shrines? If it be so,\nthis very thing only serves further to demonstrate the malicious\ncraft of these pestilent spirits. For so great is the influence of\nprobity and chastity, that all men, or almost all men, are moved by\nthe praise of these virtues; nor is any man so depraved by vice, but\nhe hath some feeling of honour left in him. So that, unless the devil\nsometimes transformed himself, as Scripture says, into an angel of\nlight,[110] he could not compass his deceitful purpose. Accordingly,\nin public, a bold impurity fills the ear of the people with noisy\nclamour; in private, a feigned chastity speaks in scarce audible\nwhispers to a few: an open stage is provided for shameful things, but\non the praiseworthy the curtain falls: grace hides, disgrace flaunts:\na wicked deed draws an overflowing house, a virtuous speech finds\nscarce a hearer, as though purity were to be blushed at, impurity\nboasted of. Where else can such confusion reign, but in devils'\ntemples? Where, but in the haunts of deceit? For the secret precepts\nare given as a sop to the virtuous, who are few in number; the wicked\nexamples are exhibited to encourage the vicious, who are countless.\n\nWhere and when those initiated in the mysteries of C\u0153lestis received\nany good instructions, we know not. What we do know is, that before\nher shrine, in which her image is set, and amidst a vast crowd\ngathering from all quarters, and standing closely packed together,\nwe were intensely interested spectators of the games which were\ngoing on, and saw, as we pleased to turn the eye, on this side a\ngrand display of harlots, on the other the virgin goddess: we saw\nthis virgin worshipped with prayer and with obscene rites. There we\nsaw no shamefaced mimes, no actress overburdened with modesty: all\nthat the obscene rites demanded was fully complied with. We were\nplainly shown what was pleasing to the virgin deity, and the matron\nwho witnessed the spectacle returned home from the temple a wiser\nwoman. Some, indeed, of the more prudent women turned their faces\nfrom the immodest movements of the players, and learned the art of\nwickedness by a furtive regard. For they were restrained, by the\nmodest demeanour due to men, from looking boldly at the immodest\ngestures; but much more were they restrained from condemning with\nchaste heart the sacred rites of her whom they adored. And yet this\nlicentiousness--which, if practised in one's home, could only be done\nthere in secret--was practised as a public lesson in the temple;\nand if any modesty remained in men, it was occupied in marvelling\nthat wickedness which men could not unrestrainedly commit should be\npart of the religious teaching of the gods, and that to omit its\nexhibition should incur the anger of the gods. What spirit can that\nbe, which by a hidden inspiration stirs men's corruption, and goads\nthem to adultery, and feeds on the full-fledged iniquity, unless it\nbe the same that finds pleasure in such religious ceremonies, sets in\nthe temples images of devils, and loves to see in play the images of\nvices; that whispers in secret some righteous sayings to deceive the\nfew who are good, and scatters in public invitations to profligacy,\nto gain possession of the millions who are wicked?\n\n\n  27. _That the obscenities of those plays which the Romans\n      consecrated in order to propitiate their gods, contributed\n      largely to the overthrow of public order._\n\nCicero, a weighty man, and a philosopher in his way, when about to\nbe made edile, wished the citizens to understand[111] that, among\nthe other duties of his magistracy, he must propitiate Flora by\nthe celebration of games. And these games are reckoned devout in\nproportion to their lewdness. In another place,[112] and when he was\nnow consul, and the state in great peril, he says that games had been\ncelebrated for ten days together, and that nothing had been omitted\nwhich could pacify the gods: as if it had not been more satisfactory\nto irritate the gods by temperance, than to pacify them by debauchery;\nand to provoke their hate by honest living, than soothe it by such\nunseemly grossness. For no matter how cruel was the ferocity of those\nmen who were threatening the state, and on whose account the gods\nwere being propitiated: it could not have been more hurtful than\nthe alliance of gods who were won with the foulest vices. To avert\nthe danger which threatened men's bodies, the gods were conciliated\nin a fashion that drove virtue from their spirits; and the gods did\nnot enrol themselves as defenders of the battlements against the\nbesiegers, until they had first stormed and sacked the morality of\nthe citizens. This propitiation of such divinities,--a propitiation\nso wanton, so impure, so immodest, so wicked, so filthy, whose actors\nthe innate and praiseworthy virtue of the Romans disabled from civic\nhonours, erased from their tribe, recognised as polluted and made\ninfamous;--this propitiation, I say, so foul, so detestable, and alien\nfrom every religious feeling, these fabulous and ensnaring accounts\nof the criminal actions of the gods, these scandalous actions which\nthey either shamefully and wickedly committed, or more shamefully and\nwickedly feigned, all this the whole city learned in public both by\nthe words and gestures of the actors. They saw that the gods delighted\nin the commission of these things, and therefore believed that they\nwished them not only to be exhibited to them, but to be imitated by\nthemselves. But as for that good and honest instruction which they\nspeak of, it was given in such secrecy, and to so few (if indeed given\nat all), that they seemed rather to fear it might be divulged, than\nthat it might not be practised.\n\n\n          28. _That the Christian religion is health-giving._\n\nThey, then, are but abandoned and ungrateful wretches, in deep and\nfast bondage to that malign spirit, who complain and murmur that men\nare rescued by the name of Christ from the hellish thraldom of these\nunclean spirits, and from a participation in their punishment, and\nare brought out of the night of pestilential ungodliness into the\nlight of most healthful piety. Only such men could murmur that the\nmasses flock to the churches and their chaste acts of worship, where\na seemly separation of the sexes is observed; where they learn how\nthey may so spend this earthly life, as to merit a blessed eternity\nhereafter; where Holy Scripture and instruction in righteousness\nare proclaimed from a raised platform in presence of all, that both\nthey who do the word may hear to their salvation, and they who do\nit not may hear to judgment. And though some enter who scoff at\nsuch precepts, all their petulance is either quenched by a sudden\nchange, or is restrained through fear or shame. For no filthy and\nwicked action is there set forth to be gazed at or to be imitated;\nbut either the precepts of the true God are recommended, His miracles\nnarrated, His gifts praised, or His benefits implored.\n\n\n       29. _An exhortation to the Romans to renounce paganism._\n\nThis, rather, is the religion worthy of your desires, O admirable\nRoman race,--the progeny of your Sc\u00e6volas and Scipios, of Regulus,\nand of Fabricius. This rather covet, this distinguish from that foul\nvanity and crafty malice of the devils. If there is in your nature\nany eminent virtue, only by true piety is it purged and perfected,\nwhile by impiety it is wrecked and punished. Choose now what you\nwill pursue, that your praise may be not in yourself, but in the\ntrue God, in whom is no error. For of popular glory you have had\nyour share; but by the secret providence of God, the true religion\nwas not offered to your choice. Awake, it is now day; as you have\nalready awaked in the persons of some in whose perfect virtue and\nsufferings for the true faith we glory: for they, contending on all\nsides with hostile powers, and conquering them all by bravely dying,\nhave purchased for us this country of ours with their blood; to which\ncountry we invite you, and exhort you to add yourselves to the number\nof the citizens of this city, which also has a sanctuary[113] of its\nown in the true remission of sins. Do not listen to those degenerate\nsons of thine who slander Christ and Christians, and impute to them\nthese disastrous times, though they desire times in which they may\nenjoy rather impunity for their wickedness than a peaceful life. Such\nhas never been Rome's ambition even in regard to her earthly country.\nLay hold now on the celestial country, which is easily won, and in\nwhich you will reign truly and for ever. For there shalt thou find no\nvestal fire, no Capitoline stone, but the one true God\n\n          \"No date, no goal will here ordain:\n           But grant an endless, boundless reign.\"[114]\n\nNo longer, then, follow after false and deceitful gods; abjure them\nrather, and despise them, bursting forth into true liberty. Gods\nthey are not, but malignant spirits, to whom your eternal happiness\nwill be a sore punishment. Juno, from whom you deduce your origin\naccording to the flesh, did not so bitterly grudge Rome's citadels\nto the Trojans, as these devils whom yet ye repute gods, grudge an\neverlasting seat to the race of mankind. And thou thyself hast in no\nwavering voice passed judgment on them, when thou didst pacify them\nwith games, and yet didst account as infamous the men by whom the\nplays were acted. Suffer us, then, to assert thy freedom against the\nunclean spirits who had imposed on thy neck the yoke of celebrating\ntheir own shame and filthiness. The actors of these divine crimes\nthou hast removed from offices of honour; supplicate the true\nGod, that He may remove from thee those gods who delight in their\ncrimes,--a most disgraceful thing if the crimes are really theirs,\nand a most malicious invention if the crimes are feigned. Well done,\nin that thou hast spontaneously banished from the number of your\ncitizens all actors and players. Awake more fully: the majesty of God\ncannot be propitiated by that which defiles the dignity of man. How,\nthen, can you believe that gods who take pleasure in such lewd plays,\nbelong to the number of the holy powers of heaven, when the men by\nwhom these plays are acted are by yourselves refused admission into\nthe number of Roman citizens even of the lowest grade? Incomparably\nmore glorious than Rome, is that heavenly city in which for victory\nyou have truth; for dignity, holiness; for peace, felicity; for life,\neternity. Much less does it admit into its society such gods, if thou\ndost blush to admit into thine such men. Wherefore, if thou wouldst\nattain to the blessed city, shun the society of devils. They who\nare propitiated by deeds of shame, are unworthy of the worship of\nright-hearted men. Let these, then, be obliterated from your worship\nby the cleansing of the Christian religion, as those men were blotted\nfrom your citizenship by the censor's mark.\n\nBut, so far as regards carnal benefits, which are the only blessings\nthe wicked desire to enjoy, and carnal miseries, which alone they\nshrink from enduring, we will show in the following book that the\ndemons have not the power they are supposed to have; and although\nthey had it, we ought rather on that account to despise these\nblessings, than for the sake of them to worship those gods, and\nby worshipping them to miss the attainment of these blessings\nthey grudge us. But that they have not even this power which is\nascribed to them by those who worship them for the sake of temporal\nadvantages, this, I say, I will prove in the following book; so let\nus here close the present argument.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[81] Ps. xciv. 4.\n\n[82] 2 Tim. iii. 7.\n\n[83] \"Pluvia defit, causa Christiani.\" Similar accusations and\nsimilar replies may be seen in the celebrated passage of Tertullian's\n_Apol._ c. 40, and in the eloquent exordium of Arnobius, _C. Gentes_.\n\n[84] Augustine is supposed to refer to Symmachus, who similarly\naccused the Christians in his address to the Emperor Valentinianus\nin the year 384. At Augustine's request, Paulus Orosius wrote his\nhistory in confutation of Symmachus' charges.\n\n[85] Tertullian (_Apol._ c. 24) mentions C\u0153lestis as specially\nworshipped in Africa. Augustine mentions her again in the 26th\nchapter of this book, and in other parts of his works.\n\n[86] Berecynthia is one of the many names of Rhea or Cybele. Livy\n(xxix. 11) relates that the image of Cybele was brought to Rome the\nday before the ides of April, which was accordingly dedicated as\nher feast-day. The image, it seems, had to be washed in the stream\nAlmon, a tributary of the Tiber, before being placed in the temple\nof Victory; and each year, as the festival returned, the washing\nwas repeated with much pomp at the same spot. Hence Lucan's line\n(i. 600), 'Et lotam parvo revocant Almone Cybelen,' and the elegant\nverses of Ovid, _Fast._ iv. 337 et seq.\n\n[87] \"Fercula,\" dishes, or courses.\n\n[88] See Cicero, _De Nat. Deor._ ii. 24.\n\n[89] Prov. vi. 26.\n\n[90] Fugalia. Vives is uncertain to what feast Augustine refers.\nCensorinus understands him to refer to a feast celebrating the\nexpulsion of the kings from Rome. This feast, however (celebrated on\nthe 24th February), was commonly called \"Regifugium.\"\n\n[91] Persius, _Sat._ iii. 66-72.\n\n[92] See below, books viii.-xii.\n\n[93] \"Galli,\" the castrated priests of Cybele, who were named after\nthe river Gallus, in Phrygia, the water of which was supposed to\nintoxicate or madden those who drank it. According to Vitruvius\n(viii. 3), there was a similar fountain in Paphlagonia. Apuleius\n(_Golden Ass_, viii.) gives a graphic and humorous description of\nthe dress, dancing, and imposture of these priests; mentioning,\namong other things, that they lashed themselves with whips and cut\nthemselves with knives till the ground was wet with blood.\n\n[94] Persius, _Sat._ iii. 37.\n\n[95] Ter. _Eun._ iii. 5. 36; and cf. the similar allusion in\nAristoph. _Clouds_, 1033-4. It may be added that the argument of this\nchapter was largely used by the wiser of the heathen themselves.\nDionysius Hal. (ii. 20) and Seneca (_De Brev. Vit._ c. xvi.) make\nthe very same complaint; and it will be remembered that his adoption\nof this reasoning was one of the grounds on which Euripides was\nsuspected of atheism.\n\n[96] This sentence recalls Augustine's own experience as a boy, which\nhe bewails in his _Confessions_.\n\n[97] Labeo, a jurist of the time of Augustus, learned in law and\nantiquities, and the author of several works much prized by his own\nand some succeeding ages. The two articles in Smith's Dictionary on\nAntistius and Cornelius Labeo should be read.\n\n[98] \"Lectisternia,\" feasts in which the images of the gods were laid\non pillows in the streets, and all kinds of food set before them.\n\n[99] According to Livy (vii. 2), theatrical exhibitions were\nintroduced in the year 392 A. U. C. Before that time, he says, there\nhad only been the games of the circus. The Romans sent to Etruria for\nplayers, who were called \"histriones,\" \"hister\" being the Tuscan word\nfor a player. Other particulars are added by Livy.\n\n[100] See the _Republic_, book iii.\n\n[101] Comp. Tertullian, _De Spectac._ c. 22.\n\n[102] The Egyptian gods represented with dogs' heads, called by Lucan\n(viii. 832) _semicanes deos_.\n\n[103] The Fever had, according to Vives, three altars in Rome. See\nCicero, _De Nat. Deor._ iii. 25, and \u00c6lian, _Var. Hist._ xii. 11.\n\n[104] Cicero, _De Republica_, v. Compare the third _Tusculan Qu\u00e6st._\nc. ii.\n\n[105] In the year A.U. 299, three ambassadors were sent from Rome\nto Athens to copy Solon's laws, and acquire information about the\ninstitutions of Greece. On their return the Decemviri were appointed\nto draw up a code; and finally, after some tragic interruptions, the\ncelebrated Twelve Tables were accepted as the fundamental statutes\nof Roman law (_fons universi publici privatique juris_). These were\ngraven on brass, and hung up for public information. Livy, iii. 31-34.\n\n[106] Possibly he refers to Plautus' _Persa_, iv. 4. 11-14.\n\n[107] Sallust, _Cat. Con._ ix. Compare the similar saying of Tacitus\nregarding the chastity of the Germans: \"Plusque ibi boni mores\nvalent, quam alibi bon\u00e6 leges\" (_Germ._ xix.).\n\n[108] The same collocation of words is used by Cicero with reference to\nthe well-known mode of renewing the appetite in use among the Romans.\n\n[109] _\u00c6neid_, ii. 351-2.\n\n[110] 2 Cor. xi. 14.\n\n[111] Cicero, _C. Verrem_, vi. 8.\n\n[112] Cicero, _C. Catilinam_, iii. 8.\n\n[113] Alluding to the sanctuary given to all who fled to Rome in its\nearly days.\n\n[114] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, i. 278.\n\n\n\n\n                              BOOK THIRD.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  AS IN THE FOREGOING BOOK AUGUSTINE HAS PROVED REGARDING MORAL AND\n      SPIRITUAL CALAMITIES, SO IN THIS BOOK HE PROVES REGARDING\n      EXTERNAL AND BODILY DISASTERS, THAT SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF\n      THE CITY THE ROMANS HAVE BEEN CONTINUALLY SUBJECT TO THEM; AND\n      THAT EVEN WHEN THE FALSE GODS WERE WORSHIPPED WITHOUT A RIVAL,\n      BEFORE THE ADVENT OF CHRIST, THEY AFFORDED NO RELIEF FROM SUCH\n      CALAMITIES.\n\n\n   1. _Of the ills which alone the wicked fear, and which the world\n      continually suffered, even when the gods were worshipped._\n\nOf moral and spiritual evils, which are above all others to be\ndeprecated, I think enough has already been said to show that the\nfalse gods took no steps to prevent the people who worshipped them\nfrom being overwhelmed by such calamities, but rather aggravated\nthe ruin. I see I must now speak of those evils which alone are\ndreaded by the heathen--famine, pestilence, war, pillage, captivity,\nmassacre, and the like calamities, already enumerated in the first\nbook. For evil men account those things alone evil which do not make\nmen evil; neither do they blush to praise good things, and yet to\nremain evil among the good things they praise. It grieves them more\nto own a bad house than a bad life, as if it were man's greatest good\nto have everything good but himself. But not even such evils as were\nalone dreaded by the heathen were warded off by their gods, even when\nthey were most unrestrictedly worshipped. For in various times and\nplaces before the advent of our Redeemer, the human race was crushed\nwith numberless and sometimes incredible calamities; and at that\ntime what gods but those did the world worship, if you except the\none nation of the Hebrews, and, beyond them, such individuals as the\nmost secret and most just judgment of God counted worthy of divine\ngrace?[115] But that I may not be prolix, I will be silent regarding\nthe heavy calamities that have been suffered by any other nations,\nand will speak only of what happened to Rome and the Roman empire, by\nwhich I mean Rome properly so called, and those lands which already,\nbefore the coming of Christ, had by alliance or conquest become, as\nit were, members of the body of the state.\n\n\n    2. _Whether the gods, whom the Greeks and Romans worshipped in\n    common, were justified in permitting the destruction of Ilium._\n\nFirst, then, why was Troy or Ilium, the cradle of the Roman people\n(for I must not overlook nor disguise what I touched upon in the\nfirst book[116]), conquered, taken, and destroyed by the Greeks,\nthough it esteemed and worshipped the same gods as they? Priam, some\nanswer, paid the penalty of the perjury of his father Laomedon.[117]\nThen it is true that Laomedon hired Apollo and Neptune as his\nworkmen. For the story goes that he promised them wages, and then\nbroke his bargain. I wonder that famous diviner Apollo toiled at so\nhuge a work, and never suspected Laomedon was going to cheat him of\nhis pay. And Neptune too, his uncle, brother of Jupiter, king of the\nsea, it really was not seemly that he should be ignorant of what was\nto happen. For he is introduced by Homer[118] (who lived and wrote\nbefore the building of Rome) as predicting something great of the\nposterity of \u00c6neas, who in fact founded Rome. And as Homer says,\nNeptune also rescued \u00c6neas in a cloud from the wrath of Achilles,\nthough (according to Virgil[119])\n\n          \"All his will was to destroy\n           His own creation, perjured Troy.\"\n\nGods, then, so great as Apollo and Neptune, in ignorance of the cheat\nthat was to defraud them of their wages, built the walls of Troy for\nnothing but thanks and thankless people.[120] There may be some doubt\nwhether it is not a worse crime to believe such persons to be gods,\nthan to cheat such gods. Even Homer himself did not give full credence\nto the story; for while he represents Neptune, indeed, as hostile to\nthe Trojans, he introduces Apollo as their champion, though the story\nimplies that both were offended by that fraud. If, therefore, they\nbelieve their fables, let them blush to worship such gods; if they\ndiscredit the fables, let no more be said of the \"Trojan perjury;\" or\nlet them explain how the gods hated Trojan, but loved Roman perjury.\nFor how did the conspiracy of Catiline, even in so large and corrupt a\ncity, find so abundant a supply of men whose hands and tongues found\nthem a living by perjury and civic broils? What else but perjury\ncorrupted the judgments pronounced by so many of the senators? What\nelse corrupted the people's votes and decisions of all causes tried\nbefore them? For it seems that the ancient practice of taking oaths has\nbeen preserved even in the midst of the greatest corruption, not for\nthe sake of restraining wickedness by religious fear, but to complete\nthe tale of crimes by adding that of perjury.\n\n\n   3. _That the gods could not be offended by the adultery of Paris,\n             this crime being so common among themselves._\n\nThere is no ground, then, for representing the gods (by whom, as they\nsay, that empire stood, though they are proved to have been conquered\nby the Greeks) as being enraged at the Trojan perjury. Neither,\nas others again plead in their defence, was it indignation at the\nadultery of Paris that caused them to withdraw their protection from\nTroy. For their habit is to be instigators and instructors in vice,\nnot its avengers. \"The city of Rome,\" says Sallust, \"was first built\nand inhabited, as I have heard, by the Trojans, who, flying their\ncountry, under the conduct of \u00c6neas, wandered about without making\nany settlement.\"[121] If, then, the gods were of opinion that the\nadultery of Paris should be punished, it was chiefly the Romans, or\nat least the Romans also, who should have suffered; for the adultery\nwas brought about by \u00c6neas' mother. But how could they hate in Paris\na crime which they made no objection to in their own sister Venus,\nwho (not to mention any other instance) committed adultery with\nAnchises, and so became the mother of \u00c6neas? Is it because in the\none case Menelaus[122] was aggrieved, while in the other Vulcan[123]\nconnived at the crime? For the gods, I fancy, are so little jealous\nof their wives, that they make no scruple of sharing them with men.\nBut perhaps I may be suspected of turning the myths into ridicule,\nand not handling so weighty a subject with sufficient gravity. Well,\nthen, let us say that \u00c6neas is not the son of Venus. I am willing\nto I admit it; but is Romulus any more the son of Mars? For why\nnot the one as well as the other? Or is it lawful for gods to have\nintercourse with women, unlawful for men to have intercourse with\ngoddesses? A hard, or rather an incredible condition, that what\nwas allowed to Mars by the law of Venus, should not be allowed to\nVenus herself by her own law. However, both cases have the authority\nof Rome; for C\u00e6sar in modern times believed no less that he was\ndescended from Venus,[124] than the ancient Romulus believed himself\nthe son of Mars.\n\n\n      4. _Of Varro's opinion, that it is useful for men to feign\n                themselves the offspring of the gods._\n\nSome one will say, But do you believe all this? Not I indeed. For\neven Varro, a very learned heathen, all but admits that these stories\nare false, though he does not boldly and confidently say so. But he\nmaintains it is useful for states that brave men believe, though\nfalsely, that they are descended from the gods; for that thus the\nhuman spirit, cherishing the belief of its divine descent, will both\nmore boldly venture into great enterprises, and will carry them\nout more energetically, and will therefore by its very confidence\nsecure more abundant success. You see how wide a field is opened to\nfalsehood by this opinion of Varro's, which I have expressed as well\nas I could in my own words; and how comprehensible it is, that many\nof the religions and sacred legends should be feigned in a community\nin which it was judged profitable for the citizens that lies should\nbe told even about the gods themselves.\n\n\n  5. _That it is not credible that the gods should have punished the\n      adultery of Paris, seeing they showed no indignation at the\n      adultery of the mother of Romulus._\n\nBut whether Venus could bear \u00c6neas to a human father Anchises, or\nMars beget Romulus of the daughter of Numitor, we leave as unsettled\nquestions. For our own Scriptures suggest the very similar question,\nwhether the fallen angels had sexual intercourse with the daughters\nof men, by which the earth was at that time filled with giants,\nthat is, with enormously large and strong men. At present, then, I\nwill limit my discussion to this dilemma: If that which their books\nrelate about the mother of \u00c6neas and the father of Romulus be true,\nhow can the gods be displeased with men for adulteries which, when\ncommitted by themselves, excite no displeasure? If it is false,\nnot even in this case can the gods be angry that men should really\ncommit adulteries, which, even when falsely attributed to the gods,\nthey delight in. Moreover, if the adultery of Mars be discredited,\nthat Venus also may be freed from the imputation, then the mother\nof Romulus is left unshielded by the pretext of a divine seduction.\nFor Sylvia was a vestal priestess, and the gods ought to avenge this\nsacrilege on the Romans with greater severity than Paris' adultery\non the Trojans. For even the Romans themselves in primitive times\nused to go so far as to bury alive any vestal who was detected in\nadultery, while women unconsecrated, though they were punished,\nwere never punished with death for that crime; and thus they more\nearnestly vindicated the purity of shrines they esteemed divine, than\nof the human bed.\n\n\n    6. _That the gods exacted no penalty for the fratricidal act of\n                               Romulus._\n\nI add another instance: If the sins of men so greatly incensed those\ndivinities, that they abandoned Troy to fire and sword to punish\nthe crime of Paris, the murder of Romulus' brother ought to have\nincensed them more against the Romans than the cajoling of a Greek\nhusband moved them against the Trojans: fratricide in a newly-born\ncity should have provoked them more than adultery in a city already\nflourishing. It makes no difference to the question we now discuss,\nwhether Romulus ordered his brother to be slain, or slew him with\nhis own hand; a crime this latter which many shamelessly deny, many\nthrough shame doubt, many in grief disguise. And we shall not pause\nto examine and weigh the testimonies of historical writers on the\nsubject. All agree that the brother of Romulus was slain, not by\nenemies, not by strangers. If it was Romulus who either commanded or\nperpetrated this crime; Romulus was more truly the head of the Romans\nthan Paris of the Trojans; why then did he who carried off another\nman's wife bring down the anger of the gods on the Trojans, while he\nwho took his brother's life obtained the guardianship of those same\ngods? If, on the other hand, that crime was not wrought either by the\nhand or will of Romulus, then the whole city is chargeable with it,\nbecause it did not see to its punishment, and thus committed, not\nfratricide, but parricide, which is worse. For both brothers were\nthe founders of that city, of which the one was by villany prevented\nfrom being a ruler. So far as I see, then, no evil can be ascribed\nto Troy which warranted the gods in abandoning it to destruction,\nnor any good to Rome which accounts for the gods visiting it with\nprosperity; unless the truth be, that they fled from Troy because\nthey were vanquished, and betook themselves to Rome to practise their\ncharacteristic deceptions there. Nevertheless they kept a footing for\nthemselves in Troy, that they might deceive future inhabitants who\nrepeopled these lands; while at Rome, by a wider exercise of their\nmalignant arts, they exulted in more abundant honours.\n\n\n 7. _Of the destruction of Ilium by Fimbria, a lieutenant of Marius._\n\nAnd surely we may ask what wrong poor Ilium had done, that, in the\nfirst heat of the civil wars of Rome, it should suffer at the hand of\nFimbria, the veriest villain among Marius' partisans, a more fierce\nand cruel destruction than the Grecian sack.[125] For when the Greeks\ntook it many escaped, and many who did not escape were suffered to\nlive, though in captivity. But Fimbria from the first gave orders\nthat not a life should be spared, and burnt up together the city and\nall its inhabitants. Thus was Ilium requited, not by the Greeks, whom\nshe had provoked by wrong-doing; but by the Romans, who had been\nbuilt out of her ruins; while the gods, adored alike of both sides,\ndid simply nothing, or, to speak more correctly, could do nothing.\nIs it then true, that at this time also, after Troy had repaired\nthe damage done by the Grecian fire, all the gods by whose help the\nkingdom stood, \"forsook each fane, each sacred shrine?\"\n\nBut if so, I ask the reason; for in my judgment, the conduct of\nthe gods was as much to be reprobated as that of the townsmen to\nbe applauded. For these closed their gates against Fimbria, that\nthey might preserve the city for Sylla, and were therefore burnt\nand consumed by the enraged general. Now, up to this time, Sylla's\ncause was the more worthy of the two; for till now he used arms to\nrestore the republic, and as yet his good intentions had met with no\nreverses. What better thing, then, could the Trojans have done? What\nmore honourable, what more faithful to Rome, or more worthy of her\nrelationship, than to preserve their city for the better part of the\nRomans, and to shut their gates against a parricide of his country?\nIt is for the defenders of the gods to consider the ruin which this\nconduct brought on Troy. The gods deserted an adulterous people, and\nabandoned Troy to the fires of the Greeks, that out of her ashes a\nchaster Rome might arise. But why did they a second time abandon this\nsame town, allied now to Rome, and not making war upon her noble\ndaughter, but preserving a most stedfast and pious fidelity to Rome's\nmost justifiable faction? Why did they give her up to be destroyed, not\nby the Greek heroes, but by the basest of the Romans? Or, if the gods\ndid not favour Sylla's cause, for which the unhappy Trojans maintained\ntheir city, why did they themselves predict and promise Sylla such\nsuccesses? Must we call them flatterers of the fortunate, rather than\nhelpers of the wretched? Troy was not destroyed, then, because the gods\ndeserted it. For the demons, always watchful to deceive, did what they\ncould. For, when all the statues were overthrown and burnt together\nwith the town, Livy tells us that only the image of Minerva is said to\nhave been found standing uninjured amidst the ruins of her temple; not\nthat it might be said in their praise, \"The gods who made this realm\ndivine,\" but that it might not be said in their defence, They are \"gone\nfrom each fane, each sacred shrine:\" for that marvel was permitted to\nthem, not that they might be proved to be powerful, but that they might\nbe convicted of being present.\n\n\n  8. _Whether Rome ought to have been entrusted to the Trojan gods?_\n\nWhere, then, was the wisdom of entrusting Rome to the Trojan\ngods, who had demonstrated their weakness in the loss of Troy?\nWill some one say that, when Fimbria stormed Troy, the gods were\nalready resident in Rome? How, then, did the image of Minerva remain\nstanding? Besides, if they were at Rome when Fimbria destroyed Troy,\nperhaps they were at Troy when Rome itself was taken and set on fire\nby the Gauls. But as they are very acute in hearing, and very swift\nin their movements, they came quickly at the cackling of the goose to\ndefend at least the Capitol, though to defend the rest of the city\nthey were too long in being warned.\n\n\n  9. _Whether it is credible that the peace during the reign of Numa\n                    was brought about by the gods._\n\nIt is also believed that it was by the help of the gods that the\nsuccessor of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, enjoyed peace during his entire\nreign, and shut the gates of Janus, which are customarily kept\nopen[126] during war. And it is supposed he was thus requited for\nappointing many religious observances among the Romans. Certainly that\nking would have commanded our congratulations for so rare a leisure,\nhad he been wise enough to spend it on wholesome pursuits, and,\nsubduing a pernicious curiosity, had sought out the true God with true\npiety. But as it was, the gods were not the authors of his leisure; but\npossibly they would have deceived him less had they found him busier.\nFor the more disengaged they found him, the more they themselves\noccupied his attention. Varro informs us of all his efforts, and of the\narts he employed to associate these gods with himself and the city;\nand in its own place, if God will, I shall discuss these matters.\nMeanwhile, as we are speaking of the benefits conferred by the gods,\nI readily admit that peace is a great benefit; but it is a benefit of\nthe true God, which, like the sun, the rain, and other supports of\nlife, is frequently conferred on the ungrateful and wicked. But if this\ngreat boon was conferred on Rome and Pompilius by their gods, why did\nthey never afterwards grant it to the Roman empire during even more\nmeritorious periods? Were the sacred rites more efficient at their\nfirst institution than during their subsequent celebration? But they\nhad no existence in Numa's time, until he added them to the ritual;\nwhereas afterwards they had already been celebrated and preserved, that\nbenefit might arise from them. How, then, is it that those forty-three,\nor as others prefer it, thirty-nine years of Numa's reign, were passed\nin unbroken peace, and yet that afterwards, when the worship was\nestablished, and the gods themselves, who were invoked by it, were the\nrecognised guardians and patrons of the city, we can with difficulty\nfind during the whole period, from the building of the city to the\nreign of Augustus, one year--that, viz., which followed the close of\nthe first Punic war--in which, for a marvel, the Romans were able to\nshut the gates of war?[127]\n\n\n  10. _Whether it was desirable that the Roman empire should be\n      increased by such a furious succession of wars, when it might\n      have been quiet and safe by following in the peaceful ways of\n      Numa._\n\nDo they reply that the Roman empire could never have been so widely\nextended, nor so glorious, save by constant and unintermitting wars?\nA fit argument, truly! Why must a kingdom be distracted in order to\nbe great? In this little world of man's body, is it not better to\nhave a moderate stature, and health with it, than to attain the huge\ndimensions of a giant by unnatural torments, and when you attain it\nto find no rest, but to be pained the more in proportion to the size\nof your members? What evil would have resulted, or rather what good\nwould not have resulted, had those times continued which Sallust\nsketched, when he says, \"At first the kings (for that was the first\ntitle of empire in the world) were divided in their sentiments: part\ncultivated the mind, others the body: at that time the life of men\nwas led without covetousness; every one was sufficiently satisfied\nwith his own!\"[128] Was it requisite, then, for Rome's prosperity,\nthat the state of things which Virgil reprobates should succeed:\n\n          \"At length stole on a baser age,\n           And war's indomitable rage,\n           And greedy lust of gain?\"[129]\n\nBut obviously the Romans have a plausible defence for undertaking\nand carrying on such disastrous wars,--to wit, that the pressure of\ntheir enemies forced them to resist, so that they were compelled\nto fight, not by any greed of human applause, but by the necessity\nof protecting life and liberty. Well, let that pass. Here is\nSallust's account of the matter: \"For when their state, enriched\nwith laws, institutions, territory, seemed abundantly prosperous and\nsufficiently powerful, according to the ordinary law of human nature,\nopulence gave birth to envy. Accordingly, the neighbouring kings and\nstates took arms and assaulted them. A few allies lent assistance;\nthe rest, struck with fear, kept aloof from dangers. But the Romans,\nwatchful at home and in war, were active, made preparations,\nencouraged one another, marched to meet their enemies,--protected\nby arms their liberty, country, parents. Afterwards, when they had\nrepelled the dangers by their bravery, they carried help to their\nallies and friends, and procured alliances more by conferring than\nby receiving favours.\"[130] This was to build up Rome's greatness by\nhonourable means. But, in Numa's reign, I would know whether the long\npeace was maintained in spite of the incursions of wicked neighbours,\nor if these incursions were discontinued that the peace might be\nmaintained? For if even then Rome was harassed by wars, and yet did\nnot meet force with force, the same means she then used to quiet her\nenemies without conquering them in war, or terrifying them with the\nonset of battle, she might have used always, and have reigned in\npeace with the gates of Janus shut. And if this was not in her power,\nthen Rome enjoyed peace not at the will of her gods, but at the will\nof her neighbours round about, and only so long as they cared to\nprovoke her with no war, unless perhaps these pitiful gods will dare\nto sell to one man as their favour what lies not in their power to\nbestow, but in the will of another man. These demons, indeed, in so\nfar as they are permitted, can terrify or incite the minds of wicked\nmen by their own peculiar wickedness. But if they always had this\npower, and if no action were taken against their efforts by a more\nsecret and higher power, they would be supreme to give peace or the\nvictories of war, which almost always fall out through some human\nemotion, and frequently in opposition to the will of the gods, as is\nproved not only by lying legends, which scarcely hint or signify any\ngrain of truth, but even by Roman history itself.\n\n\n  11. _Of the statue of Apollo at Cum\u00e6, whose tears are supposed to\n      have portended disaster to the Greeks, whom the god was unable\n      to succour._\n\nAnd it is still this weakness of the gods which is confessed in the\nstory of the Cuman Apollo, who is said to have wept for four days\nduring the war with the Ach\u00e6ans and King Aristonicus. And when the\naugurs were alarmed at the portent, and had determined to cast the\nstatue into the sea, the old men of Cum\u00e6 interposed, and related\nthat a similar prodigy had occurred to the same image during the\nwars against Antiochus and against Perseus, and that by a decree of\nthe senate gifts had been presented to Apollo, because the event had\nproved favourable to the Romans. Then soothsayers were summoned who\nwere supposed to have greater professional skill, and they pronounced\nthat the weeping of Apollo's image was propitious to the Romans,\nbecause Cum\u00e6 was a Greek colony, and that Apollo was bewailing (and\nthereby presaging) the grief and calamity that was about to light\nupon his own land of Greece, from which he had been brought. Shortly\nafterwards it was reported that King Aristonicus was defeated and\nmade prisoner,--a defeat certainly opposed to the will of Apollo;\nand this he indicated by even shedding tears from his marble image.\nAnd this shows us that, though the verses of the poets are mythical,\nthey are not altogether devoid of truth, but describe the manners of\nthe demons in a sufficiently fit style. For in Virgil Diana mourned\nfor Camilla,[131] and Hercules wept for Pallas doomed to die.[132]\nThis is perhaps the reason why Numa Pompilius, too, when, enjoying\nprolonged peace, but without knowing or inquiring from whom he\nreceived it, he began in his leisure to consider to what gods he\nshould entrust the safe keeping and conduct of Rome, and not dreaming\nthat the true, almighty, and most high God cares for earthly affairs,\nbut recollecting only that the Trojan gods which \u00c6neas had brought\nto Italy had been able to preserve neither the Trojan nor Lavinian\nkingdom founded by \u00c6neas himself, concluded that he must provide\nother gods as guardians of fugitives and helpers of the weak, and add\nthem to those earlier divinities who had either come over to Rome\nwith Romulus, or when Alba was destroyed.\n\n\n 12. _That the Romans added a vast number of gods to those introduced\n       by Numa, and that their numbers helped them not at all._\n\nBut though Pompilius introduced so ample a ritual, yet did not Rome\nsee fit to be content with it. For as yet Jupiter himself had not\nhis chief temple,--it being King Tarquin who built the Capitol.\nAnd \u00c6sculapius left Epidaurus for Rome, that in this foremost city\nhe might have a finer field for the exercise of his great medical\nskill.[133] The mother of the gods, too, came I know not whence from\nPessinuns; it being unseemly that, while her son presided on the\nCapitoline hill, she herself should lie hid in obscurity. But if she\nis the mother of all the gods, she not only followed some of her\nchildren to Rome, but left others to follow her. I wonder, indeed,\nif she were the mother of Cynocephalus, who a long while afterwards\ncame from Egypt. Whether also the goddess Fever was her offspring,\nis a matter for her grandson \u00c6sculapius[134] to decide. But of\nwhatever breed she be, the foreign gods will not presume, I trust, to\ncall a goddess base-born who is a Roman citizen. Who can number the\ndeities to whom the guardianship of Rome was entrusted? Indigenous\nand imported, both of heaven, earth, hell, seas, fountains, rivers;\nand, as Varro says, gods certain and uncertain, male and female:\nfor, as among animals, so among all kinds of gods are there these\ndistinctions. Rome, then, enjoying the protection of such a cloud of\ndeities, might surely have been preserved from some of those great\nand horrible calamities, of which I can mention but a few. For by\nthe great smoke of her altars she summoned to her protection, as by\na beacon-fire, a host of gods, for whom she appointed and maintained\ntemples, altars, sacrifices, priests, and thus offended the true and\nmost high God, to whom alone all this ceremonial is lawfully due.\nAnd, indeed, she was more prosperous when she had fewer gods; but\nthe greater she became, the more gods she thought she should have, as\nthe larger ship needs to be manned by a larger crew. I suppose she\ndespaired of the smaller number, under whose protection she had spent\ncomparatively happy days, being able to defend her greatness. For\neven under the kings (with the exception of Numa Pompilius, of whom I\nhave already spoken), how wicked a contentiousness must have existed\nto occasion the death of Romulus' brother!\n\n\n    13. _By what right or agreement the Romans obtained their first\n                                wives._\n\nHow is it that neither Juno, who with her husband Jupiter even then\ncherished\n\n          \"Rome's sons, the nation of the gown,\"[135]\n\nnor Venus herself, could assist the children of the loved \u00c6neas to find\nwives by some right and equitable means? For the lack of this entailed\nupon the Romans the lamentable necessity of stealing their wives, and\nthen waging war with their fathers-in-law; so that the wretched women,\nbefore they had recovered from the wrong done them by their husbands,\nwere dowried with the blood of their fathers. \"But the Romans conquered\ntheir neighbours.\" Yes; but with what wounds on both sides, and with\nwhat sad slaughter of relatives and neighbours! The war of C\u00e6sar and\nPompey was the contest of only one father-in-law with one son-in-law;\nand before it began, the daughter of C\u00e6sar, Pompey's wife, was already\ndead. But with how keen and just an accent of grief does Lucan[136]\nexclaim: \"I sing that worse than civil war waged in the plains of\nEmathia, and in which the crime was justified by the victory!\"\n\nThe Romans, then, conquered that they might, with hands stained in the\nblood of their fathers-in-law, wrench the miserable girls from their\nembrace,--girls who dared not weep for their slain parents, for fear\nof offending their victorious husbands; and while yet the battle was\nraging, stood with their prayers on their lips, and knew not for whom\nto utter them. Such nuptials were certainly prepared for the Roman\npeople not by Venus, but Bellona; or possibly that infernal fury\nAlecto had more liberty to injure them now that Juno was aiding them,\nthan when the prayers of that goddess had excited her against \u00c6neas.\nAndromache in captivity was happier than these Roman brides. For though\nshe was a slave, yet, after she had become the wife of Pyrrhus, no\nmore Trojans fell by his hand; but the Romans slew in battle the very\nfathers of the brides they fondled. Andromache, the victor's captive,\ncould only mourn, not fear, the death of her people. The Sabine women,\nrelated to men still combatants, feared the death of their fathers\nwhen their husbands went out to battle, and mourned their death as\nthey returned, while neither their grief nor their fear could be\nfreely expressed. For the victories of their husbands, involving the\ndestruction of fellow-townsmen, relatives, brothers, fathers, caused\neither pious agony or cruel exultation. Moreover, as the fortune of\nwar is capricious, some of them lost their husbands by the sword of\ntheir parents, while others lost husband and father together in mutual\ndestruction. For the Romans by no means escaped with impunity, but they\nwere driven back within their walls, and defended themselves behind\nclosed gates; and when the gates were opened by guile, and the enemy\nadmitted into the town, the Forum itself was the field of a hateful\nand fierce engagement of fathers-in-law and sons-in-law. The ravishers\nwere indeed quite defeated, and, flying on all sides to their houses,\nsullied with new shame their original shameful and lamentable triumph.\nIt was at this juncture that Romulus, hoping no more from the valour\nof his citizens, prayed Jupiter that they might stand their ground;\nand from this occasion the god gained the name of Stator. But not even\nthus would the mischief have been finished, had not the ravished women\nthemselves flashed out with dishevelled hair, and cast themselves\nbefore their parents, and thus disarmed their just rage, not with\nthe arms of victory, but with the supplications of filial affection.\nThen Romulus, who could not brook his own brother as a colleague, was\ncompelled to accept Titus Tatius, king of the Sabines, as his partner\non the throne. But how long would he who misliked the fellowship of his\nown twin-brother endure a stranger? So, Tatius being slain, Romulus\nremained sole king, that he might be the greater god. See what rights\nof marriage these were that fomented unnatural wars. These were the\nRoman leagues of kindred, relationship, alliance, religion. This was\nthe life of the city so abundantly protected by the gods. You see how\nmany severe things might be said on this theme; but our purpose carries\nus past them, and requires our discourse for other matters.\n\n\n     14. _Of the wickedness of the war waged by the Romans against\n      the Albans, and of the victories won by the lust of power._\n\nBut what happened after Numa's reign, and under the other kings,\nwhen the Albans were provoked into war, with sad results not to\nthemselves alone, but also to the Romans? The long peace of Numa had\nbecome tedious; and with what endless slaughter and detriment of both\nstates did the Roman and Alban armies bring it to an end! For Alba,\nwhich had been founded by Ascanius, son of \u00c6neas, and which was more\nproperly the mother of Rome than Troy herself, was provoked to battle\nby Tullus Hostilius, king of Rome, and in the conflict both inflicted\nand received such damage, that at length both parties wearied of the\nstruggle. It was then devised that the war should be decided by the\ncombat of three twin-brothers from each army: from the Romans the\nthree Horatii stood forward, from the Albans the three Curiatii. Two\nof the Horatii were overcome and disposed of by the Curiatii; but\nby the remaining Horatius the three Curiatii were slain. Thus Rome\nremained victorious, but with such a sacrifice that only one survivor\nreturned to his home. Whose was the loss on both sides? Whose the\ngrief, but of the offspring of \u00c6neas, the descendants of Ascanius,\nthe progeny of Venus, the grandsons of Jupiter? For this, too, was\na \"worse than civil\" war, in which the belligerent states were\nmother and daughter. And to this combat of the three twin-brothers\nthere was added another atrocious and horrible catastrophe. For\nas the two nations had formerly been friendly (being related and\nneighbours), the sister of the Horatii had been betrothed to one of\nthe Curiatii; and she, when she saw her brother wearing the spoils of\nher betrothed, burst into tears, and was slain by her own brother in\nhis anger. To me, this one girl seems to have been more humane than\nthe whole Roman people. I cannot think her to blame for lamenting\nthe man to whom already she had plighted her troth, or, as perhaps\nshe was doing, for grieving that her brother should have slain him\nto whom he had promised his sister. For why do we praise the grief\nof \u00c6neas (in Virgil[137]) over the enemy cut down even by his own\nhand? Why did Marcellus shed tears over the city of Syracuse, when he\nrecollected, just before he destroyed, its magnificence and meridian\nglory, and thought upon the common lot of all things? I demand, in\nthe name of humanity, that if men are praised for tears shed over\nenemies conquered by themselves, a weak girl should not be counted\ncriminal for bewailing her lover slaughtered by the hand of her\nbrother. While, then, that maiden was weeping for the death of her\nbetrothed inflicted by her brother's hand, Rome was rejoicing that\nsuch devastation had been wrought on her mother state, and that she\nhad purchased a victory with such an expenditure of the common blood\nof herself and the Albans.\n\nWhy allege to me the mere names and words of \"glory\" and \"victory?\"\nTear off the disguise of wild delusion, and look at the naked deeds:\nweigh them naked, judge them naked. Let the charge be brought against\nAlba, as Troy was charged with adultery. There is no such charge,\nnone like it found: the war was kindled only in order that there\n\n          \"Might sound in languid ears the cry\n           Of Tullus and of victory.\"[138]\n\nThis vice of restless ambition was the sole motive to that social and\nparricidal war,--a vice which Sallust brands in passing; for when\nhe has spoken with brief but hearty commendation of those primitive\ntimes in which life was spent without covetousness, and every one\nwas sufficiently satisfied with what he had, he goes on: \"But after\nCyrus in Asia, and the Lacedemonians and Athenians in Greece, began\nto subdue cities and nations, and to account the lust of sovereignty\na sufficient ground for war, and to reckon that the greatest glory\nconsisted in the greatest empire;\"[139] and so on, as I need not\nnow quote. This lust of sovereignty disturbs and consumes the human\nrace with frightful ills. By this lust Rome was overcome when she\ntriumphed over Alba, and praising her own crime, called it glory.\nFor, as our Scriptures say, \"the wicked boasteth of his heart's\ndesire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth.\"[140]\nAway, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes,\nthat things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized. Let no man tell\nme that this and the other was a \"great\" man, because he fought\nand conquered so and so. Gladiators fight and conquer, and this\nbarbarism has its meed of praise; but I think it were better to take\nthe consequences of any sloth, than to seek the glory won by such\narms. And if two gladiators entered the arena to fight, one being\nfather, the other his son, who would endure such a spectacle? who\nwould not be revolted by it? How, then, could that be a glorious war\nwhich a daughter-state waged against its mother? Or did it constitute\na difference, that the battlefield was not an arena, and that the\nwide plains were filled with the carcases not of two gladiators, but\nof many of the flower of two nations; and that those contests were\nviewed not by the amphitheatre, but by the whole world, and furnished\na profane spectacle both to those alive at the time, and to their\nposterity, so long as the fame of it is handed down?\n\nYet those gods, guardians of the Roman empire, and, as it were,\ntheatric spectators of such contests as these, were not satisfied until\nthe sister of the Horatii was added by her brother's sword as a third\nvictim from the Roman side, so that Rome herself, though she won the\nday, should have as many deaths to mourn. Afterwards, as a fruit of the\nvictory, Alba was destroyed, though it was there the Trojan gods had\nformed a third asylum after Ilium had been sacked by the Greeks, and\nafter they had left Lavinium, where \u00c6neas had founded a kingdom in a\nland of banishment. But probably Alba was destroyed because from it too\nthe gods had migrated, in their usual fashion, as Virgil says:\n\n          \"Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,\n           Are those who made this realm divine.\"[141]\n\nGone, indeed, and from now their third asylum, that Rome might\nseem all the wiser in committing herself to them after they had\ndeserted three other cities. Alba, whose king Amulius had banished\nhis brother, displeased them; Rome, whose king Romulus had slain his\nbrother, pleased them. But before Alba was destroyed, its population,\nthey say, was amalgamated with the inhabitants of Rome, so that\nthe two cities were one. Well, admitting it was so, yet the fact\nremains that the city of Ascanius, the third retreat of the Trojan\ngods, was destroyed by the daughter-city. Besides, to effect this\npitiful conglomerate of the war's leavings, much blood was spilt on\nboth sides. And how shall I speak in detail of the same wars, so\noften renewed in subsequent reigns, though they seemed to have been\nfinished by great victories; and of wars that time after time were\nbrought to an end by great slaughters, and which yet time after time\nwere renewed by the posterity of those who had made peace and struck\ntreaties? Of this calamitous history we have no small proof, in the\nfact that no subsequent king closed the gates of war; and therefore,\nwith all their tutelar gods, no one of them reigned in peace.\n\n\n       15. _What manner of life and death the Roman kings had._\n\nAnd what was the end of the kings themselves? Of Romulus, a flattering\nlegend tells us that he was assumed into heaven. But certain Roman\nhistorians relate that he was torn in pieces by the senate for his\nferocity, and that a man, Julius Proculus, was suborned to give out\nthat Romulus had appeared to him, and through him commanded the Roman\npeople to worship him as a god; and that in this way the people, who\nwere beginning to resent the action of the senate, were quieted and\npacified. For an eclipse of the sun had also happened; and this was\nattributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude,\nwho did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the\nsun's course: though this grief of the sun might rather have been\nconsidered proof that Romulus had been slain, and that the crime\nwas indicated by this deprivation of the sun's light; as, in truth,\nwas the case when the Lord was crucified through the cruelty and\nimpiety of the Jews. For it is sufficiently demonstrated that this\nlatter obscuration of the sun did not occur by the natural laws of\nthe heavenly bodies, because it was then the Jewish passover, which\nis held only at full moon, whereas natural eclipses of the sun happen\nonly at the last quarter of the moon. Cicero, too, shows plainly enough\nthat the apotheosis of Romulus was imaginary rather than real, when,\neven while he is praising him in one of Scipio's remarks in the _De\nRepublica_, he says: \"Such a reputation had he acquired, that when he\nsuddenly disappeared during an eclipse of the sun, he was supposed to\nhave been assumed into the number of the gods, which could be supposed\nof no mortal who had not the highest reputation for virtue.\"[142] By\nthese words, \"he suddenly disappeared,\" we are to understand that he\nwas mysteriously made away with by the violence either of the tempest\nor of a murderous assault. For their other writers speak not only of an\neclipse, but of a sudden storm also, which certainly either afforded\nopportunity for the crime, or itself made an end of Romulus. And of\nTullus Hostilius, who was the third king of Rome, and who was himself\ndestroyed by lightning, Cicero in the same book says, that \"he was\nnot supposed to have been deified by this death, possibly because the\nRomans were unwilling to vulgarize the promotion they were assured or\npersuaded of in the case of Romulus, lest they should bring it into\ncontempt by gratuitously assigning it to all and sundry.\" In one of his\ninvectives,[143] too, he says, in round terms, \"The founder of this\ncity, Romulus, we have raised to immortality and divinity by kindly\ncelebrating his services;\" implying that his deification was not real,\nbut reputed, and called so by courtesy on account of his virtues. In\nthe dialogue _Hortensius_, too, while speaking of the regular eclipses\nof the sun, he says that they \"produce the same darkness as covered the\ndeath of Romulus, which happened during an eclipse of the sun.\" Here\nyou see he does not at all shrink from speaking of his \"death,\" for\nCicero was more of a reasoner than an eulogist.\n\nThe other kings of Rome, too, with the exception of Numa Pompilius and\nAncus Marcius, who died natural deaths, what horrible ends they had!\nTullus Hostilius, the conqueror and destroyer of Alba, was, as I said,\nhimself and all his house consumed by lightning. Priscus Tarquinius was\nslain by his predecessor's sons. Servius Tullius was foully murdered by\nhis son-in-law Tarquinius Superbus, who succeeded him on the throne.\nNor did so flagrant a parricide committed against Rome's best king\ndrive from their altars and shrines those gods who were said to have\nbeen moved by Paris' adultery to treat poor Troy in this style, and\nabandon it to the fire and sword of the Greeks. Nay, the very Tarquin\nwho had murdered, was allowed to succeed his father-in-law. And this\ninfamous parricide, during the reign he had secured by murder, was\nallowed to triumph in many victorious wars, and to build the Capitol\nfrom their spoils; the gods meanwhile not departing, but abiding, and\nabetting, and suffering their king Jupiter to preside and reign over\nthem in that very splendid Capitol, the work of a parricide. For he did\nnot build the Capitol in the days of his innocence, and then suffer\nbanishment for subsequent crimes; but to that reign during which he\nbuilt the Capitol, he won his way by unnatural crime. And when he was\nafterwards banished by the Romans, and forbidden the city, it was not\nfor his own but his son's wickedness in the affair of Lucretia,--a\ncrime perpetrated not only without his cognizance, but in his absence.\nFor at that time he was besieging Ardea, and fighting Rome's battles;\nand we cannot say what he would have done had he been aware of his\nson's crime. Notwithstanding, though his opinion was neither inquired\ninto nor ascertained, the people stripped him of royalty; and when he\nreturned to Rome with his army, it was admitted, but he was excluded,\nabandoned by his troops, and the gates shut in his face. And yet, after\nhe had appealed to the neighbouring states, and tormented the Romans\nwith calamitous but unsuccessful wars, and when he was deserted by the\nally on whom he most depended, despairing of regaining the kingdom, he\nlived a retired and quiet life for fourteen years, as it is reported,\nin Tusculum, a Roman town; where he grew old in his wife's company,\nand at last terminated his days in a much more desirable fashion than\nhis father-in-law, who had perished by the hand of his son-in-law;\nhis own daughter abetting, if report be true. And this Tarquin the\nRomans called, not the Cruel, nor the Infamous, but the Proud; their\nown pride perhaps resenting his tyrannical airs. So little did they\nmake of his murdering their best king, his own father-in-law, that\nthey elected him their own king. I wonder if it was not even more\ncriminal in them to reward so bountifully so great a criminal. And yet\nthere was no word of the gods abandoning the altars; unless, perhaps,\nsome one will say in defence of the gods, that they remained at Rome\nfor the purpose of punishing the Romans, rather than of aiding and\nprofiting them, seducing them by empty victories, and wearing them out\nby severe wars. Such was the life of the Romans under the kings during\nthe much-praised epoch of the state which extends to the expulsion of\nTarquinius Superbus in the 243d year, during which all those victories,\nwhich were bought with so much blood and such disasters, hardly pushed\nRome's dominion twenty miles from the city; a territory which would by\nno means bear comparison with that of any petty G\u00e6tulian state.\n\n\n  16. _Of the first Roman consuls, the one of whom drove the other\n      from the country, and shortly after perished at Rome by the\n      hand of a wounded enemy, and so ended a career of unnatural\n      murders._\n\nTo this epoch let us add also that of which Sallust says, that it was\nordered with justice and moderation, while the fear of Tarquin and\nof a war with Etruria was impending. For so long as the Etrurians\naided the efforts of Tarquin to regain the throne, Rome was convulsed\nwith distressing war. And therefore he says that the state was\nordered with justice and moderation, through the pressure of fear,\nnot through the influence of equity. And in this very brief period,\nhow calamitous a year was that in which consuls were first created,\nwhen the kingly power was abolished! They did not fulfil their term\nof office. For Junius Brutus deprived his colleague Lucius Tarquinius\nCollatinus, and banished him from the city; and shortly after he\nhimself fell in battle, at once slaying and slain, having formerly\nput to death his own sons and his brothers-in-law, because he had\ndiscovered that they were conspiring to restore Tarquin. It is this\ndeed that Virgil shudders to record, even while he seems to praise\nit; for when he says,\n\n          \"And call his own rebellious seed\n           For menaced liberty to bleed,\"\n\nhe immediately exclaims,\n\n          \"Unhappy father! howsoe'er\n           The deed be judged by after days;\"\n\nthat is to say, let posterity judge the deed as they please, let them\npraise and extol the father who slew his sons, he is unhappy. And\nthen he adds, as if to console so unhappy a man:\n\n          \"His country's love shall all o'erbear,\n           And unextinguished thirst of praise.\"[144]\n\nIn the tragic end of Brutus, who slew his own sons, and though he\nslew his enemy, Tarquin's son, yet could not survive him, but was\nsurvived by Tarquin the elder, does not the innocence of his colleague\nCollatinus seem to be vindicated, who, though a good citizen, suffered\nthe same punishment as Tarquin himself, when that tyrant was banished?\nFor Brutus himself is said to have been a relative[145] of Tarquin.\nBut Collatinus had the misfortune to bear not only the blood, but the\nname of Tarquin. To change his name, then, not his country, would have\nbeen his fit penalty: to abridge his name by this word, and be called\nsimply L. Collatinus. But he was not compelled to lose what he could\nlose without detriment, but was stripped of the honour of the first\nconsulship, and was banished from the land he loved. Is this, then, the\nglory of Brutus--this injustice, alike detestable and profitless to\nthe republic? Was it to this he was driven by \"his country's love, and\nunextinguished thirst of praise?\"\n\nWhen Tarquin the tyrant was expelled, L. Tarquinius Collatinus,\nthe husband of Lucretia, was created consul along with Brutus. How\njustly the people acted, in looking more to the character than the\nname of a citizen! How unjustly Brutus acted, in depriving of honour\nand country his colleague in that new office, whom he might have\ndeprived of his name, if it were so offensive to him! Such were the\nills, such the disasters, which fell out when the government was\n\"ordered with justice and moderation.\" Lucretius, too, who succeeded\nBrutus, was carried off by disease before the end of that same year.\nSo P. Valerius, who succeeded Collatinus, and M. Horatius, who\nfilled the vacancy occasioned by the death of Lucretius, completed\nthat disastrous and funereal year, which had five consuls. Such was\nthe year in which the Roman republic inaugurated the new honour and\noffice of the consulship.\n\n\n  17. _Of the disasters which vexed the Roman republic after the\n      inauguration of the consulship, and of the non-intervention of\n      the gods of Rome._\n\nAfter this, when their fears were gradually diminished,--not because\nthe wars ceased, but because they were not so furious,--that period in\nwhich things were \"ordered with justice and moderation\" drew to an end,\nand there followed that state of matters which Sallust thus briefly\nsketches: \"Then began the patricians to oppress the people as slaves,\nto condemn them to death or scourging, as the kings had done, to drive\nthem from their holdings, and to tyrannize over those who had no\nproperty to lose. The people, overwhelmed by these oppressive measures,\nand most of all by usury, and obliged to contribute both money and\npersonal service to the constant wars, at length took arms and seceded\nto Mount Aventine and Mount Sacer, and thus secured for themselves\ntribunes and protective laws. But it was only the second Punic war that\nput an end on both sides to discord and strife.\"[146] But why should I\nspend time in writing such things, or make others spend it in reading\nthem? Let the terse summary of Sallust suffice to intimate the misery\nof the republic through all that long period till the second Punic\nwar,--how it was distracted from without by unceasing wars, and torn\nwith civil broils and dissensions. So that those victories they boast\nwere not the substantial joys of the happy, but the empty comforts of\nwretched men, and seductive incitements to turbulent men to concoct\ndisasters upon disasters. And let not the good and prudent Romans be\nangry at our saying this; and indeed we need neither deprecate nor\ndenounce their anger, for we know they will harbour none. For we speak\nno more severely than their own authors, and much less elaborately and\nstrikingly; yet they diligently read these authors, and compel their\nchildren to learn them. But they who are angry, what would they do to\nme were I to say what Sallust says? \"Frequent mobs, seditions, and at\nlast civil wars, became common, while a few leading men on whom the\nmasses were dependent, affected supreme power under the seemly pretence\nof seeking the good of senate and people; citizens were judged good\nor bad, without reference to their loyalty to the republic (for all\nwere equally corrupt); but the wealthy and dangerously powerful were\nesteemed good citizens, because they maintained the existing state of\nthings.\" Now, if those historians judged that an honourable freedom of\nspeech required that they should not be silent regarding the blemishes\nof their own state, which they have in many places loudly applauded in\ntheir ignorance of that other and true city in which citizenship is an\neverlasting dignity; what does it become us to do, whose liberty ought\nto be so much greater, as our hope in God is better and more assured,\nwhen they impute to our Christ the calamities of this age, in order\nthat men of the less instructed and weaker sort may be alienated from\nthat city in which alone eternal and blessed life can be enjoyed? Nor\ndo we utter against their gods anything more horrible than their own\nauthors do, whom they read and circulate. For, indeed, all that we have\nsaid we have derived from them, and there is much more to say of a\nworse kind which we are unable to say.\n\nWhere, then, were those gods who are supposed to be justly worshipped\nfor the slender and delusive prosperity of this world, when the\nRomans, who were seduced to their service by lying wiles, were\nharassed by such calamities? Where were they when Valerius the consul\nwas killed while defending the Capitol, that had been fired by\nexiles and slaves? He was himself better able to defend the temple\nof Jupiter, than that crowd of divinities with their most high and\nmighty king, whose temple he came to the rescue of, were able to\ndefend him. Where were they when the city, worn out with unceasing\nseditions, was waiting in some kind of calm for the return of the\nambassadors who had been sent to Athens to borrow laws, and was\ndesolated by dreadful famine and pestilence? Where were they when the\npeople, again distressed with famine, created for the first time a\nprefect of the market; and when Spurius Melius, who, as the famine\nincreased, distributed corn to the famishing masses, was accused\nof aspiring to royalty, and at the instance of this same prefect,\nand on the authority of the superannuated dictator L. Quintius, was\nput to death by Quintus Servilius, master of the horse,--an event\nwhich occasioned a serious and dangerous riot? Where were they\nwhen that very severe pestilence visited Rome, on account of which\nthe people, after long and wearisome and useless supplications of\nthe helpless gods, conceived the idea of celebrating Lectisternia,\nwhich had never been done before; that is to say, they set couches\nin honour of the gods, which accounts for the name of this sacred\nrite, or rather sacrilege?[147] Where were they when, during ten\nsuccessive years of reverses, the Roman army suffered frequent and\ngreat losses among the Veians, and would have been destroyed but\nfor the succour of Furius Camillus, who was afterwards banished by\nan ungrateful country? Where were they when the Gauls took, sacked,\nburned, and desolated Rome? Where were they when that memorable\npestilence wrought such destruction, in which Furius Camillus too\nperished, who first defended the ungrateful republic from the Veians,\nand afterwards saved it from the Gauls? Nay, during this plague they\nintroduced a new pestilence of scenic entertainments, which spread\nits more fatal contagion, not to the bodies, but the morals of the\nRomans? Where were they when another frightful pestilence visited\nthe city--I mean the poisonings imputed to an incredible number of\nnoble Roman matrons, whose characters were infected with a disease\nmore fatal than any plague? Or when both consuls at the head of the\narmy were beset by the Samnites in the Caudine Forks, and forced to\nstrike a shameful treaty, 600 Roman knights being kept as hostages;\nwhile the troops, having laid down their arms, and being stripped of\neverything, were made to pass under the yoke with one garment each?\nOr when, in the midst of a serious pestilence, lightning struck the\nRoman camp and killed many? Or when Rome was driven, by the violence\nof another intolerable plague, to send to Epidaurus for \u00c6sculapius\nas a god of medicine; since the frequent adulteries of Jupiter in\nhis youth had not perhaps left this king of all who so long reigned\nin the Capitol, any leisure for the study of medicine? Or when, at\none time, the Lucanians, Brutians, Samnites, Tuscans, and Senonian\nGauls conspired against Rome, and first slew her ambassadors, then\noverthrew an army under the pr\u00e6tor, putting to the sword 13,000\nmen, besides the commander and seven tribunes? Or when the people,\nafter the serious and long-continued disturbances at Rome, at last\nplundered the city and withdrew to Janiculus; a danger so grave,\nthat Hortensius was created dictator,--an office which they had\nrecourse to only in extreme emergencies; and he, having brought back\nthe people, died while yet he retained his office,--an event without\nprecedent in the case of any dictator, and which was a shame to those\ngods who had now \u00c6sculapius among them?\n\nAt that time, indeed, so many wars were everywhere engaged in, that\nthrough scarcity of soldiers they enrolled for military service the\n_proletarii_, who received this name, because, being too poor to\nequip for military service, they had leisure to beget offspring.[148]\nPyrrhus, king of Greece, and at that time of wide-spread renown, was\ninvited by the Tarentines to enlist himself against Rome. It was to\nhim that Apollo, when consulted regarding the issue of his enterprise,\nuttered with some pleasantry so ambiguous an oracle, that whichever\nalternative happened, the god himself should be counted divine. For he\nso worded the oracle,[149] that whether Pyrrhus was conquered by the\nRomans, or the Romans by Pyrrhus, the soothsaying god would securely\nawait the issue. And then what frightful massacres of both armies\nensued! Yet Pyrrhus remained conqueror, and would have been able now\nto proclaim Apollo a true diviner, as he understood the oracle, had\nnot the Romans been the conquerors in the next engagement. And while\nsuch disastrous wars were being waged, a terrible disease broke out\namong the women. For the pregnant women died before delivery. And\n\u00c6sculapius, I fancy, excused himself in this matter on the ground that\nhe professed to be arch-physician, not midwife. Cattle, too, similarly\nperished; so that it was believed that the whole race of animals was\ndestined to become extinct. Then what shall I say of that memorable\nwinter in which the weather was so incredibly severe, that in the\nForum frightfully deep snow lay for forty days together, and the Tiber\nwas frozen? Had such things happened in our time, what accusations we\nshould have heard from our enemies! And that other great pestilence,\nwhich raged so long and carried off so many; what shall I say of it?\nSpite of all the drugs of \u00c6sculapius, it only grew worse in its second\nyear, till at last recourse was had to the Sibylline books,--a kind of\noracle which, as Cicero says in his _De Divinatione_, owes significance\nto its interpreters, who make doubtful conjectures as they can or as\nthey wish. In this instance, the cause of the plague was said to be\nthat so many temples had been used as private residences. And thus\n\u00c6sculapius for the present escaped the charge of either ignominious\nnegligence or want of skill. But why were so many allowed to occupy\nsacred tenements without interference, unless because supplication had\nlong been addressed in vain to such a crowd of gods, and so by degrees\nthe sacred places were deserted of worshippers, and being thus vacant,\ncould without offence be put at least to some human uses? And the\ntemples, which were at that time laboriously recognised and restored\nthat the plague might be stayed, fell afterwards into disuse, and were\nagain devoted to the same human uses. Had they not thus lapsed into\nobscurity, it could not have been pointed to as proof of Varro's great\nerudition, that in his work on sacred places he cites so many that were\nunknown. Meanwhile, the restoration of the temples procured no cure of\nthe plague, but only a fine excuse for the gods.\n\n\n  18. _The disasters suffered by the Romans in the Punic wars, which\n          were not mitigated by the protection of the gods._\n\nIn the Punic wars, again, when victory hung so long in the balance\nbetween the two kingdoms, when two powerful nations were straining\nevery nerve and using all their resources against one another, how\nmany smaller kingdoms were crushed, how many large and flourishing\ncities were demolished, how many states were overwhelmed and ruined,\nhow many districts and lands far and near were desolated! How often\nwere the victors on either side vanquished! What multitudes of\nmen, both of those actually in arms and of others, were destroyed!\nWhat huge navies, too, were crippled in engagements, or were sunk\nby every kind of marine disaster! Were we to attempt to recount\nor mention these calamities, we should become writers of history.\nAt that period Rome was mightily perturbed, and resorted to vain\nand ludicrous expedients. On the authority of the Sibylline books,\nthe secular games were re-appointed, which had been inaugurated a\ncentury before, but had faded into oblivion in happier times. The\ngames consecrated to the infernal gods were also renewed by the\npontiffs; for they, too, had sunk into disuse in the better times.\nAnd no wonder; for when they were renewed, the great abundance of\ndying men made all hell rejoice at its riches, and give itself up to\nsport: for certainly the ferocious wars, and disastrous quarrels, and\nbloody victories--now on one side, and now on the other--though most\ncalamitous to men, afforded great sport and a rich banquet to the\ndevils. But in the first Punic war there was no more disastrous event\nthan the Roman defeat in which Regulus was taken. We made mention of\nhim in the two former books as an incontestably great man, who had\nbefore conquered and subdued the Carthaginians, and who would have\nput an end to the first Punic war, had not an inordinate appetite for\npraise and glory prompted him to impose on the worn-out Carthaginians\nharder conditions than they could bear. If the unlooked-for captivity\nand unseemly bondage of this man, his fidelity to his oath, and his\nsurpassingly cruel death, do not bring a blush to the face of the\ngods, it is true that they are brazen and bloodless.\n\nNor were there wanting at that time very heavy disasters within the\ncity itself. For the Tiber was extraordinarily flooded, and destroyed\nalmost all the lower parts of the city; some buildings being carried\naway by the violence of the torrent, while others were soaked to\nrottenness by the water that stood round them even after the flood\nwas gone. This visitation was followed by a fire which was still\nmore destructive, for it consumed some of the loftier buildings\nround the Forum, and spared not even its own proper temple, that of\nVesta, in which virgins chosen for this honour, or rather for this\npunishment, had been employed in conferring, as it were, everlasting\nlife on fire, by ceaselessly feeding it with fresh fuel. But at the\ntime we speak of, the fire in the temple was not content with being\nkept alive: it raged. And when the virgins, scared by its vehemence,\nwere unable to save those fatal images which had already brought\ndestruction on three cities[150] in which they had been received,\nMetellus the priest, forgetful of his own safety, rushed in and\nrescued the sacred things, though he was half roasted in doing so.\nFor either the fire did not recognise even him, or else the goddess\nof fire was there,--a goddess who would not have fled from the fire\nsupposing she had been there. But here you see how a man could be of\ngreater service to Vesta than she could be to him. Now if these gods\ncould not avert the fire from themselves, what help against flames or\nflood could they bring to the state of which they were the reputed\nguardians? Facts have shown that they were useless. These objections\nof ours would be idle if our adversaries maintained that their idols\nare consecrated rather as symbols of things eternal, than to secure\nthe blessings of time; and that thus, though the symbols, like all\nmaterial and visible things, might perish, no damage thereby resulted\nto the things for the sake of which they had been consecrated,\nwhile, as for the images themselves, they could be renewed again\nfor the same purposes they had formerly served. But with lamentable\nblindness, they suppose that, through the intervention of perishable\ngods, the earthly well-being and temporal prosperity of the state can\nbe preserved from perishing. And so, when they are reminded that even\nwhen the gods remained among them this well-being and prosperity were\nblighted, they blush to change the opinion they are unable to defend.\n\n\n   19. _Of the calamity of the second Punic war, which consumed the\n                      strength of both parties._\n\nAs to the second Punic war, it were tedious to recount the disasters\nit brought on both the nations engaged in so protracted and shifting\na war, that (by the acknowledgment even of those writers who have\nmade it their object not so much to narrate the wars as to eulogize\nthe dominion of Rome) the people who remained victorious were less\nlike conquerors than conquered. For, when Hannibal poured out of\nSpain over the Pyrenees, and overran Gaul, and burst through the\nAlps, and during his whole course gathered strength by plundering and\nsubduing as he went, and inundated Italy like a torrent, how bloody\nwere the wars, and how continuous the engagements, that were fought!\nHow often were the Romans vanquished! How many towns went over to\nthe enemy, and how many were taken and subdued! What fearful battles\nthere were, and how often did the defeat of the Romans shed lustre\non the arms of Hannibal! And what shall I say of the wonderfully\ncrushing defeat at Cann\u00e6, where even Hannibal, cruel as he was, was\nyet sated with the blood of his bitterest enemies, and gave orders\nthat they be spared? From this field of battle he sent to Carthage\nthree bushels of gold rings, signifying that so much of the rank\nof Rome had that day fallen, that it was easier to give an idea of\nit by measure than by numbers; and that the frightful slaughter of\nthe common rank and file whose bodies lay undistinguished by the\nring, and who were numerous in proportion to their meanness, was\nrather to be conjectured than accurately reported. In fact, such\nwas the scarcity of soldiers after this, that the Romans impressed\ntheir criminals on the promise of impunity, and their slaves by\nthe bribe of liberty, and out of these infamous classes did not so\nmuch recruit as create an army. But these slaves, or, to give them\nall their titles, these freedmen who were enlisted to do battle for\nthe republic of Rome, lacked arms. And so they took arms from the\ntemples, as if the Romans were saying to their gods: Lay down those\narms you have held so long in vain, if by chance our slaves may be\nable to use to purpose what you, our gods, have been impotent to\nuse. At that time, too, the public treasury was too low to pay the\nsoldiers, and private resources were used for public purposes; and\nso generously did individuals contribute of their property, that,\nsaving the gold ring and bulla which each wore, the pitiful mark\nof his rank, no senator, and much less any of the other orders and\ntribes, reserved any gold for his own use. But if in our day they\nwere reduced to this poverty, who would be able to endure their\nreproaches, barely endurable as they are now, when more money is\nspent on actors for the sake of a superfluous gratification, than was\nthen disbursed to the legions?\n\n\n  20. _Of the destruction of the Saguntines, who received no help\n      from the Roman gods, though perishing on account of their\n      fidelity to Rome._\n\nBut among all the disasters of the second Punic war, there occurred\nnone more lamentable, or calculated to excite deeper complaint, than\nthe fate of the Saguntines. This city of Spain, eminently friendly\nto Rome, was destroyed by its fidelity to the Roman people. For when\nHannibal had broken treaty with the Romans, he sought occasion for\nprovoking them to war, and accordingly made a fierce assault upon\nSaguntum. When this was reported at Rome, ambassadors were sent to\nHannibal, urging him to raise the siege; and when this remonstrance\nwas neglected, they proceeded to Carthage, lodged complaint against\nthe breaking of the treaty, and returned to Rome without accomplishing\ntheir object. Meanwhile the siege went on; and in the eighth or ninth\nmonth, this opulent but ill-fated city, dear as it was to its own\nstate and to Rome, was taken, and subjected to treatment which one\ncannot read, much less narrate, without horror. And yet, because it\nbears directly on the matter in hand, I will briefly touch upon it.\nFirst, then, famine wasted the Saguntines, so that even human corpses\nwere eaten by some: so at least it is recorded. Subsequently, when\nthoroughly worn out, that they might at least escape the ignominy\nof falling into the hands of Hannibal, they publicly erected a huge\nfuneral pile, and cast themselves into its flames, while at the same\ntime they slew their children and themselves with the sword. Could\nthese gods, these debauchees and gourmands, whose mouths water for\nfat sacrifices, and whose lips utter lying divinations,--could they\nnot do anything in a case like this? Could they not interfere for the\npreservation of a city closely allied to the Roman people, or prevent\nit perishing for its fidelity to that alliance of which they themselves\nhad been the mediators? Saguntum, faithfully keeping the treaty it had\nentered into before these gods, and to which it had firmly bound itself\nby an oath, was besieged, taken, and destroyed by a perjured person.\nIf afterwards, when Hannibal was close to the walls of Rome, it was\nthe gods who terrified him with lightning and tempest, and drove him\nto a distance, why, I ask, did they not thus interfere before? For I\nmake bold to say, that this demonstration with the tempest would have\nbeen more honourably made in defence of the allies of Rome--who were in\ndanger on account of their reluctance to break faith with the Romans,\nand had no resources of their own--than in defence of the Romans\nthemselves, who were fighting in their own cause, and had abundant\nresources to oppose Hannibal. If, then, they had been the guardians of\nRoman prosperity and glory, they would have preserved that glory from\nthe stain of this Saguntine disaster; and how silly it is to believe\nthat Rome was preserved from destruction at the hands of Hannibal by\nthe guardian care of those gods who were unable to rescue the city of\nSaguntum from perishing through its fidelity to the alliance of Rome.\nIf the population of Saguntum had been Christian, and had suffered as\nit did for the Christian faith (though, of course, Christians would\nnot have used fire and sword against their own persons), they would\nhave suffered with that hope which springs from faith in Christ--the\nhope not of a brief temporal reward, but of unending and eternal bliss.\nWhat, then, will the advocates and apologists of these gods say in\ntheir defence, when charged with the blood of these Saguntines; for\nthey are professedly worshipped and invoked for this very purpose of\nsecuring prosperity in this fleeting and transitory life? Can anything\nbe said but what was alleged in the case of Regulus' death? For\nthough there is a difference between the two cases, the one being an\nindividual, the other a whole community, yet the cause of destruction\nwas in both cases the keeping of their plighted troth. For it was this\nwhich made Regulus willing to return to his enemies, and this which\nmade the Saguntines unwilling to revolt to their enemies. Does, then,\nthe keeping of faith provoke the gods to anger? Or is it possible\nthat not only individuals, but even entire communities, perish while\nthe gods are propitious to them? Let our adversaries choose which\nalternative they will. If, on the one hand, those gods are enraged\nat the keeping of faith, let them enlist perjured persons as their\nworshippers. If, on the other hand, men and states can suffer great and\nterrible calamities, and at last perish while favoured by the gods,\nthen does their worship not produce happiness as its fruit. Let those,\ntherefore, who suppose that they have fallen into distress because\ntheir religious worship has been abolished, lay aside their anger; for\nit were quite possible that did the gods not only remain with them, but\nregard them with favour, they might yet be left to mourn an unhappy\nlot, or might, even like Regulus and the Saguntines, be horribly\ntormented, and at last perish miserably.\n\n\n   21. _Of the ingratitude of Rome to Scipio, its deliverer, and of\n  its manners during the period which Sallust describes as the best._\n\nOmitting many things, that I may not exceed the limits of the work\nI have proposed to myself, I come to the epoch between the second\nand last Punic wars, during which, according to Sallust, the Romans\nlived with the greatest virtue and concord. Now, in this period of\nvirtue and harmony, the great Scipio, the liberator of Rome and\nItaly, who had with surprising ability brought to a close the second\nPunic war--that horrible, destructive, dangerous contest--who had\ndefeated Hannibal and subdued Carthage, and whose whole life is\nsaid to have been dedicated to the gods, and cherished in their\ntemples,--this Scipio, after such a triumph, was obliged to yield to\nthe accusations of his enemies, and to leave his country, which his\nvalour had saved and liberated, to spend the remainder of his days in\nthe town of Liternum, so indifferent to a recall from exile, that he\nis said to have given orders that not even his remains should lie in\nhis ungrateful country. It was at that time also that the proconsul\nCn. Manlius, after subduing the Galatians, introduced into Rome the\nluxury of Asia, more destructive than all hostile armies. It was then\nthat iron bedsteads and expensive carpets were first used; then, too,\nthat female singers were admitted at banquets, and other licentious\nabominations were introduced. But at present I meant to speak, not\nof the evils men voluntarily practise, but of those they suffer in\nspite of themselves. So that the case of Scipio, who succumbed to\nhis enemies, and died in exile from the country he had rescued, was\nmentioned by me as being pertinent to the present discussion; for\nthis was the reward he received from those Roman gods whose temples\nhe saved from Hannibal, and who are worshipped only for the sake of\nsecuring temporal happiness. But since Sallust, as we have seen,\ndeclares that the manners of Rome were never better than at that\ntime, I therefore judged it right to mention the Asiatic luxury then\nintroduced, that it might be seen that what he says is true, only\nwhen that period is compared with the others, during which the morals\nwere certainly worse, and the factions more violent. For at that\ntime--I mean between the second and third Punic war--that notorious\nLex Voconia was passed, which prohibited a man from making a woman,\neven an only daughter, his heir; than which law I am at a loss to\nconceive what could be more unjust. It is true that in the interval\nbetween these two Punic wars the misery of Rome was somewhat less.\nAbroad, indeed, their forces were consumed by wars, yet also consoled\nby victories; while at home there were not such disturbances as at\nother times. But when the last Punic war had terminated in the utter\ndestruction of Rome's rival, which quickly succumbed to the other\nScipio, who thus earned for himself the surname of Africanus, then\nthe Roman republic was overwhelmed with such a host of ills, which\nsprang from the corrupt manners induced by prosperity and security,\nthat the sudden overthrow of Carthage is seen to have injured\nRome more seriously than her long-continued hostility. During the\nwhole subsequent period down to the time of C\u00e6sar Augustus, who\nseems to have entirely deprived the Romans of liberty,--a liberty,\nindeed, which in their own judgment was no longer glorious, but\nfull of broils and dangers, and which now was quite enervated and\nlanguishing,--and who submitted all things again to the will of a\nmonarch, and infused as it were a new life into the sickly old age of\nthe republic, and inaugurated a fresh _r\u00e9gime_;--during this whole\nperiod, I say, many military disasters were sustained on a variety\nof occasions, all of which I here pass by. There was specially the\ntreaty of Numantia, blotted as it was with extreme disgrace; for the\nsacred chickens, they say, flew out of the coop, and thus augured\ndisaster to Mancinus the consul; just as if, during all these years\nin which that little city of Numantia had withstood the besieging\narmy of Rome, and had become a terror to the republic, the other\ngenerals had all marched against it under unfavourable auspices.\n\n\n      22. _Of the edict of Mithridates, commanding that all Roman\n               citizens found in Asia should be slain._\n\nThese things, I say, I pass in silence; but I can by no means be\nsilent regarding the order given by Mithridates, king of Asia, that\non one day all Roman citizens residing anywhere in Asia (where great\nnumbers of them were following their private business) should be put\nto death: and this order was executed. How miserable a spectacle\nwas then presented, when each man was suddenly and treacherously\nmurdered wherever he happened to be, in the field or on the road, in\nthe town, in his own home, or in the street, in market or temple, in\nbed or at table! Think of the groans of the dying, the tears of the\nspectators, and even of the executioners themselves. For how cruel a\nnecessity was it that compelled the hosts of these victims, not only\nto see these abominable butcheries in their own houses, but even to\nperpetrate them: to change their countenance suddenly from the bland\nkindliness of friendship, and in the midst of peace set about the\nbusiness of war; and, shall I say, give and receive wounds, the slain\nbeing pierced in body, the slayer in spirit! Had all these murdered\npersons, then, despised auguries? Had they neither public nor\nhousehold gods to consult when they left their homes and set out on\nthat fatal journey? If they had not, our adversaries have no reason\nto complain of these Christian times in this particular, since long\nago the Romans despised auguries as idle. If, on the other hand, they\ndid consult omens, let them tell us what good they got thereby, even\nwhen such things were not prohibited, but authorized, by human, if\nnot by divine law.\n\n\n  23. _Of the internal disasters which vexed the Roman republic, and\n      followed a portentous madness which seized all the domestic\n      animals._\n\nBut let us now mention, as succinctly as possible, those disasters\nwhich were still more vexing, because nearer home; I mean those\ndiscords which are erroneously called civil, since they destroy civil\ninterests. The seditions had now become urban wars, in which blood\nwas freely shed, and in which parties raged against one another,\nnot with wrangling and verbal contention, but with physical force\nand arms. What a sea of Roman blood was shed, what desolations and\ndevastations were occasioned in Italy by wars social, wars servile,\nwars civil! Before the Latins began the social war against Rome, all\nthe animals used in the service of man--dogs, horses, asses, oxen,\nand all the rest that are subject to man--suddenly grew wild, and\nforgot their domesticated tameness, forsook their stalls and wandered\nat large, and could not be closely approached either by strangers or\ntheir own masters without danger. If this was a portent, how serious\na calamity must have been portended by a plague which, whether\nportent or no, was in itself a serious calamity! Had it happened in\nour day, the heathen would have been more rabid against us than their\nanimals were against them.\n\n\n      24. _Of the civil dissension occasioned by the sedition of\n                             the Gracchi._\n\nThe civil wars originated in the seditions which the Gracchi excited\nregarding the agrarian laws; for they were minded to divide among the\npeople the lands which were wrongfully possessed by the nobility.\nBut to reform an abuse of so long standing was an enterprise full\nof peril, or rather, as the event proved, of destruction. For what\ndisasters accompanied the death of the elder Gracchus! what slaughter\nensued when, shortly after, the younger brother met the same fate! For\nnoble and ignoble were indiscriminately massacred; and this not by\nlegal authority and procedure, but by mobs and armed rioters. After\nthe death of the younger Gracchus, the consul Lucius Opimius, who had\ngiven battle to him within the city, and had defeated and put to the\nsword both himself and his confederates, and had massacred many of the\ncitizens, instituted a judicial examination of others, and is reported\nto have put to death as many as 3000 men. From this it may be gathered\nhow many fell in the riotous encounters, when the result even of a\njudicial investigation was so bloody. The assassin of Gracchus himself\nsold his head to the consul for its weight in gold, such being the\nprevious agreement. In this massacre, too, Marcus Fulvius, a man of\nconsular rank, with all his children, was put to death.\n\n\n    25. _Of the temple of Concord, which was erected by a decree of\n      the senate on the scene of these seditions and massacres._\n\nA pretty decree of the senate it was, truly, by which the temple of\nConcord was built on the spot where that disastrous rising had taken\nplace, and where so many citizens of every rank had fallen.[151] I\nsuppose it was that the monument of the Gracchi's punishment might\nstrike the eye and affect the memory of the pleaders. But what was\nthis but to deride the gods, by building a temple to that goddess who,\nhad she been in the city, would not have suffered herself to be torn\nby such dissensions? Or was it that Concord was chargeable with that\nbloodshed because she had deserted the minds of the citizens, and was\ntherefore incarcerated in that temple? For if they had any regard to\nconsistency, why did they not rather erect on that site a temple of\nDiscord? Or is there a reason for Concord being a goddess while Discord\nis none? Does the distinction of Labeo hold here, who would have made\nthe one a good, the other an evil deity?--a distinction which seems to\nhave been suggested to him by the mere fact of his observing at Rome\na temple to Fever as well as one to Health. But, on the same ground,\nDiscord as well as Concord ought to be deified. A hazardous venture the\nRomans made in provoking so wicked a goddess, and in forgetting that\nthe destruction of Troy had been occasioned by her taking offence. For,\nbeing indignant that she was not invited with the other gods [to the\nnuptials of Peleus and Thetis], she created dissension among the three\ngoddesses by sending in the golden apple, which occasioned strife in\nheaven, victory to Venus, the rape of Helen, and the destruction of\nTroy. Wherefore, if she was perhaps offended that the Romans had not\nthought her worthy of a temple among the other gods in their city, and\ntherefore disturbed the state with such tumults, to how much fiercer\npassion would she be roused when she saw the temple of her adversary\nerected on the scene of that massacre, or, in other words, on the scene\nof her own handiwork! Those wise and learned men are enraged at our\nlaughing at these follies; and yet, being worshippers of good and bad\ndivinities alike, they cannot escape this dilemma about Concord and\nDiscord: either they have neglected the worship of these goddesses, and\npreferred Fever and War, to whom there are shrines erected of great\nantiquity, or they have worshipped them, and after all Concord has\nabandoned them, and Discord has tempestuously hurled them into civil\nwars.\n\n\n   26. _Of the various kinds of wars which followed the building of\n                        the temple of Concord._\n\nBut they supposed that, in erecting the temple of Concord within the\nview of the orators, as a memorial of the punishment and death of\nthe Gracchi, they were raising an effectual obstacle to sedition.\nHow much effect it had, is indicated by the still more deplorable\nwars that followed. For after this the orators endeavoured not to\navoid the example of the Gracchi, but to surpass their projects; as\ndid Lucius Saturninus, a tribune of the people, and Caius Servilius\nthe pr\u00e6tor, and some time after Marcus Drusus, all of whom stirred\nseditions which first of all occasioned bloodshed, and then the\nsocial wars by which Italy was grievously injured, and reduced to a\npiteously desolate and wasted condition. Then followed the servile\nwar and the civil wars; and in them what battles were fought, and\nwhat blood was shed, so that almost all the peoples of Italy, which\nformed the main strength of the Roman empire, were conquered as\nif they were barbarians! Then even historians themselves find it\ndifficult to explain how the servile war was begun by a very few,\ncertainly less than seventy gladiators, what numbers of fierce\nand cruel men attached themselves to these, how many of the Roman\ngenerals this band defeated, and how it laid waste many districts\nand cities. And that was not the only servile war: the province of\nMacedonia, and subsequently Sicily and the sea-coast, were also\ndepopulated by bands of slaves. And who can adequately describe\neither the horrible atrocities which the pirates first committed, or\nthe wars they afterwards maintained against Rome?\n\n\n           27. _Of the civil war between Marius and Sylla._\n\nBut when Marius, stained with the blood of his fellow-citizens, whom\nthe rage of party had sacrificed, was in his turn vanquished and\ndriven from the city, it had scarcely time to breathe freely, when,\nto use the words of Cicero, \"Cinna and Marius together returned and\ntook possession of it. Then, indeed, the foremost men in the state\nwere put to death, its lights quenched. Sylla afterwards avenged\nthis cruel victory; but we need not say with what loss of life, and\nwith what ruin to the republic.\"[152] For of this vengeance, which\nwas more destructive than if the crimes which it punished had been\ncommitted with impunity, Lucan says: \"The cure was excessive, and too\nclosely resembled the disease. The guilty perished, but when none but\nthe guilty survived: and then private hatred and anger, unbridled\nby law, were allowed free indulgence.\"[153] In that war between\nMarius and Sylla, besides those who fell in the field of battle, the\ncity, too, was filled with corpses in its streets, squares, markets,\ntheatres, and temples; so that it is not easy to reckon whether the\nvictors slew more before or after victory, that they might be, or\nbecause they were, victors. As soon as Marius triumphed, and returned\nfrom exile, besides the butcheries everywhere perpetrated, the head\nof the consul Octavius was exposed on the rostrum; C\u00e6sar and Fimbria\nwere assassinated in their own houses; the two Crassi, father and\nson, were murdered in one another's sight; Bebius and Numitorius were\ndisembowelled by being dragged with hooks; Catulus escaped the hands\nof his enemies by drinking poison; Merula, the flamen of Jupiter, cut\nhis veins and made a libation of his own blood to his god. Moreover,\nevery one whose salutation Marius did not answer by giving his hand,\nwas at once cut down before his face.\n\n\n     28. _Of the victory of Sylla, the avenger of the cruelties of\n                               Marius._\n\nThen followed the victory of Sylla, the so-called avenger of the\ncruelties of Marius. But not only was his victory purchased with\ngreat bloodshed; but when hostilities were finished, hostility\nsurvived, and the subsequent peace was bloody as the war. To the\nformer and still recent massacres of the elder Marius, the younger\nMarius and Carbo, who belonged to the same party, added greater\natrocities. For when Sylla approached, and they despaired not only\nof victory, but of life itself, they made a promiscuous massacre\nof friends and foes. And, not satisfied with staining every corner\nof Rome with blood, they besieged the senate, and led forth the\nsenators to death from the curia as from a prison. Mucius Sc\u00e6vola\nthe pontiff was slain at the altar of Vesta, which he had clung to\nbecause no spot in Rome was more sacred than her temple; and his\nblood well-nigh extinguished the fire which was kept alive by the\nconstant care of the virgins. Then Sylla entered the city victorious,\nafter having slaughtered in the Villa Publica, not by combat, but by\nan order, 7000 men who had surrendered, and were therefore unarmed;\nso fierce was the rage of peace itself, even after the rage of war\nwas extinct. Moreover, throughout the whole city every partisan of\nSylla slew whom he pleased, so that the number of deaths went beyond\ncomputation, till it was suggested to Sylla that he should allow some\nto survive, that the victors might not be destitute of subjects. Then\nthis furious and promiscuous licence to murder was checked, and much\nrelief was expressed at the publication of the prescription list,\ncontaining though it did the death-warrant of two thousand men of\nthe highest ranks, the senatorial and equestrian. The large number\nwas indeed saddening, but it was consolatory that a limit was fixed;\nnor was the grief at the numbers slain so great as the joy that the\nrest were secure. But this very security, hard-hearted as it was,\ncould not but bemoan the exquisite torture applied to some of those\nwho had been doomed to die. For one was torn to pieces by the unarmed\nhands of the executioners; men treating a living man more savagely\nthan wild beasts are used to tear an abandoned corpse. Another had\nhis eyes dug out, and his limbs cut away bit by bit, and was forced\nto live a long while, or rather to die a long while, in such torture.\nSome celebrated cities were put up to auction, like farms; and one\nwas collectively condemned to slaughter, just as an individual\ncriminal would be condemned to death. These things were done in\npeace when the war was over, not that victory might be more speedily\nobtained, but that, after being obtained, it might not be thought\nlightly of. Peace vied with war in cruelty, and surpassed it: for\nwhile war overthrew armed hosts, peace slew the defenceless. War gave\nliberty to him who was attacked, to strike if he could; peace granted\nto the survivors not life, but an unresisting death.\n\n\n  29. _A comparison of the disasters which Rome experienced during\n      the Gothic and Gallic invasions, with those occasioned by the\n      authors of the civil wars._\n\nWhat fury of foreign nations, what barbarian ferocity, can compare\nwith this victory of citizens over citizens? Which was more\ndisastrous, more hideous, more bitter to Rome: the recent Gothic and\nthe old Gallic invasion, or the cruelty displayed by Marius and Sylla\nand their partisans against men who were members of the same body as\nthemselves? The Gauls, indeed, massacred all the senators they found\nin any part of the city except the Capitol, which alone was defended;\nbut they at least sold life to those who were in the Capitol, though\nthey might have starved them out if they could not have stormed\nit. The Goths, again, spared so many senators, that it is the more\nsurprising that they killed any. But Sylla, while Marius was still\nliving, established himself as conqueror in the Capitol, which the\nGauls had not violated, and thence issued his death-warrants; and\nwhen Marius had escaped by flight, though destined to return more\nfierce and bloodthirsty than ever, Sylla issued from the Capitol\neven decrees of the senate for the slaughter and confiscation of\nthe property of many citizens. Then, when Sylla left, what did the\nMarian faction hold sacred or spare, when they gave no quarter even\nto Mucius, a citizen, a senator, a pontiff, and though clasping\nin piteous embrace the very altar in which, they say, reside the\ndestinies of Rome? And that final proscription list of Sylla's, not\nto mention countless other massacres, despatched more senators than\nthe Goths could even plunder.\n\n\n   30. _Of the connection of the wars which with great severity and\n     frequency followed one another before the advent of Christ._\n\nWith what effrontery, then, with what assurance, with what impudence,\nwith what folly, or rather insanity, do they refuse to impute these\ndisasters to their own gods, and impute the present to our Christ!\nThese bloody civil wars, more distressing, by the avowal of their own\nhistorians, than any foreign wars, and which were pronounced to be\nnot merely calamitous, but absolutely ruinous to the republic, began\nlong before the coming of Christ, and gave birth to one another; so\nthat a concatenation of unjustifiable causes led from the wars of\nMarius and Sylla to those of Sertorius and Catiline, of whom the\none was proscribed, the other brought up by Sylla; from this to the\nwar of Lepidus and Catulus, of whom the one wished to rescind, the\nother to defend the acts of Sylla; from this to the war of Pompey\nand C\u00e6sar, of whom Pompey had been a partisan of Sylla, whose power\nhe equalled or even surpassed, while C\u00e6sar condemned Pompey's power\nbecause it was not his own, and yet exceeded it when Pompey was\ndefeated and slain. From him the chain of civil wars extended to the\nsecond C\u00e6sar, afterwards called Augustus, and in whose reign Christ\nwas born. For even Augustus himself waged many civil wars; and in\nthese wars many of the foremost men perished, among them that skilful\nmanipulator of the republic, Cicero. Caius [Julius] C\u00e6sar, when he\nhad conquered Pompey, though he used his victory with clemency, and\ngranted to men of the opposite faction both life and honours, was\nsuspected of aiming at royalty, and was assassinated in the curia by\na party of noble senators, who had conspired to defend the liberty\nof the republic. His power was then coveted by Antony, a man of very\ndifferent character, polluted and debased by every kind of vice, who\nwas strenuously resisted by Cicero on the same plea of defending\nthe liberty of the republic. At this juncture that other C\u00e6sar,\nthe adopted son of Caius, and afterwards, as I said, known by the\nname of Augustus, had made his _d\u00e9but_ as a young man of remarkable\ngenius. This youthful C\u00e6sar was favoured by Cicero, in order that his\ninfluence might counteract that of Antony; for he hoped that C\u00e6sar\nwould overthrow and blast the power of Antony, and establish a free\nstate,--so blind and unaware of the future was he: for that very\nyoung man, whose advancement and influence he was fostering, allowed\nCicero to be killed as the seal of an alliance with Antony, and\nsubjected to his own rule the very liberty of the republic in defence\nof which he had made so many orations.\n\n\n  31. _That it is effrontery to impute the present troubles to Christ\n      and the prohibition of polytheistic worship, since even when\n      the gods were worshipped such calamities befell the people._\n\nLet those who have no gratitude to Christ for His great benefits,\nblame their own gods for these heavy disasters. For certainly\nwhen these occurred the altars of the gods were kept blazing, and\nthere rose the mingled fragrance of \"Sab\u00e6an incense and fresh\ngarlands;\"[154] the priests were clothed with honour, the shrines\nwere maintained in splendour; sacrifices, games, sacred ecstasies,\nwere common in the temples; while the blood of the citizens was\nbeing so freely shed, not only in remote places, but among the\nvery altars of the gods. Cicero did not choose to seek sanctuary\nin a temple, because Mucius had sought it there in vain. But they\nwho most unpardonably calumniate this Christian era, are the very\nmen who either themselves fled for asylum to the places specially\ndedicated to Christ, or were led there by the barbarians that they\nmight be safe. In short, not to recapitulate the many instances I\nhave cited, and not to add to their number others which it were\ntedious to enumerate, this one thing I am persuaded of, and this\nevery impartial judgment will readily acknowledge, that if the human\nrace had received Christianity before the Punic wars, and if the\nsame desolating calamities which these wars brought upon Europe and\nAfrica had followed the introduction of Christianity, there is no one\nof those who now accuse us who would not have attributed them to our\nreligion. How intolerable would their accusations have been, at least\nso far as the Romans are concerned, if the Christian religion had\nbeen received and diffused prior to the invasion of the Gauls, or to\nthe ruinous floods and fires which desolated Rome, or to those most\ncalamitous of all events, the civil wars! And those other disasters,\nwhich were of so strange a nature that they were reckoned prodigies,\nhad they happened since the Christian era, to whom but to the\nChristians would they have imputed these as crimes? I do not speak\nof those things which were rather surprising than hurtful,--oxen\nspeaking, unborn infants articulating some words in their mothers'\nwombs, serpents flying, hens and women being changed into the other\nsex; and other similar prodigies which, whether true or false, are\nrecorded not in their imaginative, but in their historical works,\nand which do not injure, but only astonish men. But when it rained\nearth, when it rained chalk, when it rained stones--not hailstones,\nbut real stones--this certainly was calculated to do serious damage.\nWe have read in their books that the fires of Etna, pouring down from\nthe top of the mountain to the neighbouring shore, caused the sea to\nboil, so that rocks were burnt up, and the pitch of ships began to\nrun,--a phenomenon incredibly surprising, but at the same time no\nless hurtful. By the same violent heat, they relate that on another\noccasion Sicily was filled with cinders, so that the houses of the\ncity Catina were destroyed and buried under them,--a calamity which\nmoved the Romans to pity them, and remit their tribute for that\nyear. One may also read that Africa, which had by that time become a\nprovince of Rome, was visited by a prodigious multitude of locusts,\nwhich, after consuming the fruit and foliage of the trees, were\ndriven into the sea in one vast and measureless cloud; so that when\nthey were drowned and cast upon the shore the air was polluted, and\nso serious a pestilence produced that in the kingdom of Masinissa\nalone they say there perished 800,000 persons, besides a much greater\nnumber in the neighbouring districts. At Utica they assure us that,\nof 30,000 soldiers then garrisoning it, there survived only ten. Yet\nwhich of these disasters, suppose they happened now, would not be\nattributed to the Christian religion by those who thus thoughtlessly\naccuse us, and whom we are compelled to answer? And yet to their own\ngods they attribute none of these things, though they worship them\nfor the sake of escaping lesser calamities of the same kind, and do\nnot reflect that they who formerly worshipped them were not preserved\nfrom these serious disasters.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[115] Compare Aug. _Epist. ad Deogratias_, 102, 13; and _De Pr\u00e6d.\nSanct._ 19.\n\n[116] Ch. iv.\n\n[117] Virg. _Georg._ i. 502, 'Laomedonte\u00e6 luimus perjuria Troj\u00e6.'\n\n[118] _Iliad_, xx. 293 et seqq.\n\n[119] _\u00c6neid_, v. 810, 811.\n\n[120] Gratis et ingratis.\n\n[121] _De Conj. Cat._ vi.\n\n[122] Helen's husband.\n\n[123] Venus' husband.\n\n[124] Suetonius, in his _Life of Julius C\u00e6sar_ (c. 6), relates that,\nin pronouncing a funeral oration in praise of his aunt Julia, C\u00e6sar\nclaimed for the Julian gens to which his family belonged a descent\nfrom Venus, through Iulus, son of Eneas.\n\n[125] Livy, 83, one of the lost books; and Appian, _in Mithridat_.\n\n[126] The gates of Janus were not the gates of a temple, but the\ngates of a passage called Janus, which was used only for military\npurposes; shut therefore in peace, open in war.\n\n[127] The year of the Consuls T. Manlius and C. Atilius, A. U. C. 519.\n\n[128] Sall. _Conj. Cat._ ii.\n\n[129] _\u00c6neid_, viii. 326-7.\n\n[130] Sall. _Cat. Conj._ vi.\n\n[131] _\u00c6neid_, xi. 532.\n\n[132] _Ibid._ x. 464.\n\n[133] Livy, x. 47.\n\n[134] Being son of Apollo.\n\n[135] Virgil, _\u00c6n._ i. 286.\n\n[136] _Pharsal._ v. 1.\n\n[137] _\u00c6neid_, x. 821, of Lausus:\n\n          \"But when Anchises' son surveyed\n           The fair, fair face so ghastly made,\n           He groaned, by tenderness unmanned,\n           And stretched the sympathizing hand,\" etc.\n\n[138] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, vi. 813.\n\n[139] Sallust, _Cat. Conj._ ii.\n\n[140] Ps. x. 3.\n\n[141] _\u00c6neid_, ii. 351-2.\n\n[142] Cicero, _De Rep._ ii. 10.\n\n[143] _Contra Cat._ iii. 2.\n\n[144] _\u00c6neid_, vi. 820, etc.\n\n[145] His nephew.\n\n[146] _Hist._ i.\n\n[147] Lectisternia, from _lectus_, a couch, and _sterno_, I spread.\n\n[148] _Proletarius_, from _proles_, offspring.\n\n[149] The oracle ran: \"Dico te, Pyrrhe, vincere posse Romanos.\"\n\n[150] Troy, Lavinia, Alba.\n\n[151] Under the inscription on the temple some person wrote the line,\n\"Vecordi\u00e6 opus \u00e6dem facit Concordi\u00e6\"--The work of discord makes the\ntemple of Concord.\n\n[152] Cicero, _in Catilin._ iii. _sub. fin._\n\n[153] Lucan, _Pharsal._ ii. 142-146.\n\n[154] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, i. 417.\n\n\n\n\n                            BOOK FOURTH.[155]\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  IN THIS BOOK IT IS PROVED THAT THE EXTENT AND LONG DURATION OF THE\n      ROMAN EMPIRE IS TO BE ASCRIBED, NOT TO JOVE OR THE GODS OF THE\n      HEATHEN, TO WHOM INDIVIDUALLY SCARCE EVEN SINGLE THINGS AND THE\n      VERY BASEST FUNCTIONS WERE BELIEVED TO BE ENTRUSTED, BUT TO\n      THE ONE TRUE GOD, THE AUTHOR OF FELICITY, BY WHOSE POWER AND\n      JUDGMENT EARTHLY KINGDOMS ARE FOUNDED AND MAINTAINED.\n\n\n    1. _Of the things which have been discussed in the first book._\n\nHaving begun to speak of the city of God, I have thought it necessary\nfirst of all to reply to its enemies, who, eagerly pursuing earthly\njoys, and gaping after transitory things, throw the blame of all the\nsorrow they suffer in them--rather through the compassion of God\nin admonishing, than His severity in punishing--on the Christian\nreligion, which is the one salutary and true religion. And since\nthere is among them also an unlearned rabble, they are stirred up as\nby the authority of the learned to hate us more bitterly, thinking\nin their inexperience that things which have happened unwontedly\nin their days were not wont to happen in other times gone by; and\nwhereas this opinion of theirs is confirmed even by those who know\nthat it is false, and yet dissemble their knowledge in order that\nthey may seem to have just cause for murmuring against us, it was\nnecessary, from books in which their authors recorded and published\nthe history of bygone times that it might be known, to demonstrate\nthat it is far otherwise than they think; and at the same time to\nteach that the false gods, whom they openly worshipped, or still\nworship in secret, are most unclean spirits, and most malignant and\ndeceitful demons, even to such a pitch that they take delight in\ncrimes which, whether real or only fictitious, are yet their own,\nwhich it has been their will to have celebrated in honour of them at\ntheir own festivals; so that human infirmity cannot be called back\nfrom the perpetration of damnable deeds, so long as authority is\nfurnished for imitating them that seems even divine. These things we\nhave proved, not from our own conjectures, but partly from recent\nmemory, because we ourselves have seen such things celebrated, and\nto such deities, partly from the writings of those who have left\nthese things on record to posterity, not as if in reproach, but as\nin honour of their own gods. Thus Varro, a most learned man among\nthem, and of the weightiest authority, when he made separate books\nconcerning things human and things divine, distributing some among\nthe human, others among the divine, according to the special dignity\nof each, placed the scenic plays not at all among things human, but\namong things divine; though, certainly, if only there were good and\nhonest men in the state, the scenic plays ought not to be allowed\neven among things human. And this he did not on his own authority,\nbut because, being born and educated at Rome, he found them among the\ndivine things. Now as we briefly stated in the end of the first book\nwhat we intended afterwards to discuss, and as we have disposed of\na part of this in the next two books, we see what our readers will\nexpect us now to take up.\n\n\n  2. _Of those things which are contained in Books Second and Third._\n\nWe had promised, then, that we would say something against those who\nattribute the calamities of the Roman republic to our religion, and\nthat we would recount the evils, as many and great as we could remember\nor might deem sufficient, which that city, or the provinces belonging\nto its empire, had suffered before their sacrifices were prohibited,\nall of which would beyond doubt have been attributed to us, if our\nreligion had either already shone on them, or had thus prohibited\ntheir sacrilegious rites. These things we have, as we think, fully\ndisposed of in the second and third books, treating in the second of\nevils in morals, which alone or chiefly are to be accounted evils;\nand in the third, of those which only fools dread to undergo--namely,\nthose of the body or of outward things--which for the most part the\ngood also suffer. But those evils by which they themselves become\nevil, they take, I do not say patiently, but with pleasure. And how\nfew evils have I related concerning that one city and its empire! Not\neven all down to the time of C\u00e6sar Augustus. What if I had chosen to\nrecount and enlarge on those evils, not which men have inflicted on\neach other, such as the devastations and destructions of war, but which\nhappen in earthly things, from the elements of the world itself? Of\nsuch evils Apuleius speaks briefly in one passage of that book which\nhe wrote, _De Mundo_, saying that all earthly things are subject to\nchange, overthrow, and destruction.[156] For, to use his own words, by\nexcessive earthquakes the ground has burst asunder, and cities with\ntheir inhabitants have been clean destroyed: by sudden rains whole\nregions have been washed away; those also which formerly had been\ncontinents, have been insulated by strange and new-come waves, and\nothers, by the subsiding of the sea, have been made passable by the\nfoot of man: by winds and storms cities have been overthrown; fires\nhave flashed forth from the clouds, by which regions in the East being\nburnt up have perished; and on the western coasts the like destructions\nhave been caused by the bursting forth of waters and floods. So,\nformerly, from the lofty craters of Etna, rivers of fire kindled by God\nhave flowed like a torrent down the steeps. If I had wished to collect\nfrom history wherever I could, these and similar instances, where\nshould I have finished what happened even in those times before the\nname of Christ had put down those of their idols, so vain and hurtful\nto true salvation? I promised that I should also point out which of\ntheir customs, and for what cause, the true God, in whose power all\nkingdoms are, had deigned to favour to the enlargement of their empire;\nand how those whom they think gods can have profited them nothing, but\nmuch rather hurt them by deceiving and beguiling them; so that it seems\nto me I must now speak of these things, and chiefly of the increase of\nthe Roman empire. For I have already said not a little, especially in\nthe second book, about the many evils introduced into their manners by\nthe hurtful deceits of the demons whom they worshipped as gods. But\nthroughout all the three books already completed, where it appeared\nsuitable, we have set forth how much succour God, through the name of\nChrist, to whom the barbarians beyond the custom of war paid so much\nhonour, has bestowed on the good and bad, according as it is written,\n\"Who maketh His sun to rise on the good and the evil, and giveth rain\nto the just and the unjust.\"[157]\n\n\n  3. _Whether the great extent of the empire, which has been\n      acquired only by wars, is to be reckoned among the good things\n      either of the wise or the happy._\n\nNow, therefore, let us see how it is that they dare to ascribe the very\ngreat extent and duration of the Roman empire to those gods whom they\ncontend that they worship honourably, even by the obsequies of vile\ngames and the ministry of vile men: although I should like first to\ninquire for a little what reason, what prudence, there is in wishing\nto glory in the greatness and extent of the empire, when you cannot\npoint out the happiness of men who are always rolling, with dark fear\nand cruel lust, in warlike slaughters and in blood, which, whether\nshed in civil or foreign war, is still human blood; so that their\njoy may be compared to glass in its fragile splendour, of which one\nis horribly afraid lest it should be suddenly broken in pieces. That\nthis may be more easily discerned, let us not come to nought by being\ncarried away with empty boasting, or blunt the edge of our attention\nby loud-sounding names of things, when we hear of peoples, kingdoms,\nprovinces. But let us suppose a case of two men; for each individual\nman, like one letter in a language, is as it were the element of a city\nor kingdom, however far-spreading in its occupation of the earth. Of\nthese two men let us suppose that one is poor, or rather of middling\ncircumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with\nfears, pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never secure,\nalways uneasy, panting from the perpetual strife of his enemies, adding\nto his patrimony indeed by these miseries to an immense degree, and by\nthese additions also heaping up most bitter cares. But that other man\nof moderate wealth is contented with a small and compact estate, most\ndear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred\nneighbours and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind, healthy\nin body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in conscience secure. I\nknow not whether any one can be such a fool, that he dare hesitate\nwhich to prefer. As, therefore, in the case of these two men, so in two\nfamilies, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquillity\nholds good; and if we apply it vigilantly and without prejudice, we\nshall quite easily see where the mere show of happiness dwells, and\nwhere real felicity. Wherefore if the true God is worshipped, and if He\nis served with genuine rites and true virtue, it is advantageous that\ngood men should long reign both far and wide. Nor is this advantageous\nso much to themselves, as to those over whom they reign. For, so far\nas concerns themselves, their piety and probity, which are great gifts\nof God, suffice to give them true felicity, enabling them to live well\nthe life that now is, and afterwards to receive that which is eternal.\nIn this world, therefore, the dominion of good men is profitable, not\nso much for themselves as for human affairs. But the dominion of bad\nmen is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule, for they destroy their\nown souls by greater licence in wickedness; while those who are put\nunder them in service are not hurt except by their own iniquity. For\nto the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the\npunishment of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man,\nalthough he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is\na slave, and that not of one man, but, what is far more grievous, of as\nmany masters as he has vices; of which vices when the divine Scripture\ntreats, it says, \"For of whom any man is overcome, to the same he is\nalso the bond-slave.\"[158]\n\n\n       4. _How like kingdoms without justice are to robberies._\n\nJustice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great\nrobberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms?\nThe band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority\nof a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy;\nthe booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance\nof abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it\nholds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues\npeoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because\nthe reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of\ncovetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an\napt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate\nwho had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he\nmeant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold\npride, \"What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I\ndo it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost\nit with a great fleet art styled emperor.\"[159]\n\n\n     5. _Of the runaway gladiators whose power became like that of\n                            royal dignity._\n\nI shall not therefore stay to inquire what sort of men Romulus\ngathered together, seeing he deliberated much about them,--how,\nbeing assumed out of that life they led into the fellowship of his\ncity, they might cease to think of the punishment they deserved,\nthe fear of which had driven them to greater villanies; so that\nhenceforth they might be made more peaceable members of society. But\nthis I say, that the Roman empire, which by subduing many nations\nhad already grown great and an object of universal dread, was itself\ngreatly alarmed, and only with much difficulty avoided a disastrous\noverthrow, because a mere handful of gladiators in Campania, escaping\nfrom the games, had recruited a great army, appointed three generals,\nand most widely and cruelly devastated Italy. Let them say what\ngod aided these men, so that from a small and contemptible band of\nrobbers they attained to a kingdom, feared even by the Romans, who\nhad such great forces and fortresses. Or will they deny that they\nwere divinely aided because they did not last long?[160] As if,\nindeed, the life of any man whatever lasted long. In that case, too,\nthe gods aid no one to reign, since all individuals quickly die; nor\nis sovereign power to be reckoned a benefit, because in a little time\nin every man, and thus in all of them one by one, it vanishes like\na vapour. For what does it matter to those who worshipped the gods\nunder Romulus, and are long since dead, that after their death the\nRoman empire has grown so great, while they plead their causes before\nthe powers beneath? Whether those causes are good or bad, it matters\nnot to the question before us. And this is to be understood of all\nthose who carry with them the heavy burden of their actions, having\nin the few days of their life swiftly and hurriedly passed over the\nstage of the imperial office, although the office itself has lasted\nthrough long spaces of time, being filled by a constant succession\nof dying men. If, however, even those benefits which last only for\nthe shortest time are to be ascribed to the aid of the gods, these\ngladiators were not a little aided, who broke the bonds of their\nservile condition, fled, escaped, raised a great and most powerful\narmy, obedient to the will and orders of their chiefs and much feared\nby the Roman majesty, and remaining unsubdued by several Roman\ngenerals, seized many places, and, having won very many victories,\nenjoyed whatever pleasures they wished, and did what their lust\nsuggested, and, until at last they were conquered, which was done\nwith the utmost difficulty, lived sublime and dominant. But let us\ncome to greater matters.\n\n\n    6. _Concerning the covetousness of Ninus, who was the first who\n     made war on his neighbours, that he might rule more widely._\n\nJustinus, who wrote Greek or rather foreign history in Latin, and\nbriefly, like Trogus Pompeius whom he followed, begins his work\nthus: \"In the beginning of the affairs of peoples and nations the\ngovernment was in the hands of kings, who were raised to the height\nof this majesty not by courting the people, but by the knowledge\ngood men had of their moderation. The people were held bound by no\nlaws; the decisions of the princes were instead of laws. It was\nthe custom to guard rather than to extend the boundaries of the\nempire; and kingdoms were kept within the bounds of each ruler's\nnative land. Ninus king of the Assyrians first of all, through new\nlust of empire, changed the old and, as it were, ancestral custom\nof nations. He first made war on his neighbours, and wholly subdued\nas far as to the frontiers of Libya the nations as yet untrained to\nresist.\" And a little after he says: \"Ninus established by constant\npossession the greatness of the authority he had gained. Having\nmastered his nearest neighbours, he went on to others, strengthened\nby the accession of forces, and by making each fresh victory the\ninstrument of that which followed, subdued the nations of the whole\nEast.\" Now, with whatever fidelity to fact either he or Trogus may\nin general have written--for that they sometimes told lies is shown\nby other more trustworthy writers--yet it is agreed among other\nauthors, that the kingdom of the Assyrians was extended far and wide\nby King Ninus. And it lasted so long, that the Roman empire has not\nyet attained the same age; for, as those write who have treated of\nchronological history, this kingdom endured for twelve hundred and\nforty years from the first year in which Ninus began to reign, until\nit was transferred to the Medes. But to make war on your neighbours,\nand thence to proceed to others, and through mere lust of dominion to\ncrush and subdue people who do you no harm, what else is this to be\ncalled than great robbery?\n\n\n     7. _Whether earthly kingdoms in their rise and fall have been\n          either aided or deserted by the help of the gods._\n\nIf this kingdom was so great and lasting without the aid of the\ngods, why is the ample territory and long duration of the Roman\nempire to be ascribed to the Roman gods? For whatever is the cause\nin it, the same is in the other also. But if they contend that the\nprosperity of the other also is to be attributed to the aid of the\ngods, I ask of which? For the other nations whom Ninus overcame, did\nnot then worship other gods. Or if the Assyrians had gods of their\nown, who, so to speak, were more skilful workmen in the construction\nand preservation of the empire, whether are they dead, since they\nthemselves have also lost the empire; or, having been defrauded of\ntheir pay, or promised a greater, have they chosen rather to go over\nto the Medes, and from them again to the Persians, because Cyrus\ninvited them, and promised them something still more advantageous?\nThis nation, indeed, since the time of the kingdom of Alexander\nthe Macedonian, which was as brief in duration as it was great in\nextent, has preserved its own empire, and at this day occupies no\nsmall territories in the East. If this is so, then either the gods\nare unfaithful, who desert their own and go over to their enemies,\nwhich Camillus, who was but a man, did not do, when, being victor\nand subduer of a most hostile state, although he had felt that\nRome, for whom he had done so much, was ungrateful, yet afterwards,\nforgetting the injury and remembering his native land, he freed her\nagain from the Gauls; or they are not so strong as gods ought to be,\nsince they can be overcome by human skill or strength. Or if, when\nthey carry on war among themselves, the gods are not overcome by\nmen, but some gods who are peculiar to certain cities are perchance\novercome by other gods, it follows that they have quarrels among\nthemselves which they uphold, each for his own part. Therefore a\ncity ought not to worship its own gods, but rather others who aid\ntheir own worshippers. Finally, whatever may have been the case as\nto this change of sides, or flight, or migration, or failure in\nbattle on the part of the gods, the name of Christ had not yet been\nproclaimed in those parts of the earth when these kingdoms were lost\nand transferred through great destructions in war. For if, after more\nthan twelve hundred years, when the kingdom was taken away from the\nAssyrians, the Christian religion had there already preached another\neternal kingdom, and put a stop to the sacrilegious worship of false\ngods, what else would the foolish men of that nation have said, but\nthat the kingdom which had been so long preserved, could be lost for\nno other cause than the desertion of their own religions and the\nreception of Christianity? In which foolish speech that might have\nbeen uttered, let those we speak of observe their own likeness, and\nblush, if there is any sense of shame in them, because they have\nuttered similar complaints; although the Roman empire is afflicted\nrather than changed,--a thing which has befallen it in other times\nalso, before the name of Christ was heard, and it has been restored\nafter such affliction,--a thing which even in these times is not to\nbe despaired of. For who knows the will of God concerning this matter?\n\n\n  8. _Which of the gods can the Romans suppose presided over the\n      increase and preservation of their empire, when they have\n      believed that even the care of single things could scarcely be\n      committed to single gods?_\n\nNext let us ask, if they please, out of so great a crowd of gods\nwhich the Romans worship, whom in especial, or what gods they\nbelieve to have extended and preserved that empire. Now, surely of\nthis work, which is so excellent and so very full of the highest\ndignity, they dare not ascribe any part to the goddess Cloacina;[161]\nor to Volupia, who has her appellation from voluptuousness; or to\nLibentina, who has her name from lust; or to Vaticanus, who presides\nover the screaming of infants; or to Cunina, who rules over their\ncradles. But how is it possible to recount in one part of this\nbook all the names of gods or goddesses, which they could scarcely\ncomprise in great volumes, distributing among these divinities their\npeculiar offices about single things? They have not even thought\nthat the charge of their lands should be committed to any one god:\nbut they have entrusted their farms to Rusina; the ridges of the\nmountains to Jugatinus; over the downs they have set the goddess\nCollatina; over the valleys, Vallonia. Nor could they even find one\nSegetia so competent, that they could commend to her care all their\ncorn crops at once; but so long as their seed-corn was still under\nthe ground, they would have the goddess Seia set over it; then,\nwhenever it was above ground and formed straw, they set over it\nthe goddess Segetia; and when the grain was collected and stored,\nthey set over it the goddess Tutilina, that it might be kept safe.\nWho would not have thought that goddess Segetia sufficient to take\ncare of the standing corn until it had passed from the first green\nblades to the dry ears? Yet she was not enough for men, who loved\na multitude of gods, that the miserable soul, despising the chaste\nembrace of the one true God, should be prostituted to a crowd of\ndemons. Therefore they set Proserpina over the germinating seeds;\nover the joints and knots of the stems, the god Nodotus; over\nthe sheaths enfolding the ears, the goddess Volutina; when the\nsheaths opened that the spike might shoot forth, it was ascribed\nto the goddess Patelana; when the stems stood all equal with new\nears, because the ancients described this equalizing by the term\n_hostire_, it was ascribed to the goddess Hostilina; when the grain\nwas in flower, it was dedicated to the goddess Flora; when full of\nmilk, to the god Lacturnus; when maturing, to the goddess Matuta;\nwhen the crop was runcated,--that is, removed from the soil,--to the\ngoddess Runcina. Nor do I yet recount them all, for I am sick of all\nthis, though it gives them no shame. Only, I have said these very few\nthings, in order that it may be understood they dare by no means say\nthat the Roman empire has been established, increased, and preserved\nby their deities, who had all their own functions assigned to them\nin such a way, that no general oversight was entrusted to any one of\nthem. When, therefore, could Segetia take care of the empire, who was\nnot allowed to take care of the corn and the trees? When could Cunina\ntake thought about war, whose oversight was not allowed to go beyond\nthe cradles of the babies? When could Nodotus give help in battle,\nwho had nothing to do even with the sheath of the ear, but only with\nthe knots of the joints? Every one sets a porter at the door of his\nhouse, and because he is a man, he is quite sufficient; but these\npeople have set three gods, Forculus to the doors, Cardea to the\nhinge, Limentinus to the threshold.[162] Thus Forculus could not at\nthe same time take care also of the hinge and the threshold.\n\n\n  9. _Whether the great extent and long duration of the Roman empire\n      should be ascribed to Jove, whom his worshippers believe to be\n      the chief god._\n\nTherefore omitting, or passing by for a little, that crowd of petty\ngods, we ought to inquire into the part performed by the great gods,\nwhereby Rome has been made so great as to reign so long over so many\nnations. Doubtless, therefore, this is the work of Jove. For they\nwill have it that he is the king of all the gods and goddesses,\nas is shown by his sceptre and by the Capitol on the lofty hill.\nConcerning that god they publish a saying which, although that of a\npoet, is most apt, \"All things are full of Jove.\"[163] Varro believes\nthat this god is worshipped, although called by another name, even\nby those who worship one God alone without any image. But if this\nis so, why has he been so badly used at Rome (and indeed by other\nnations too), that an image of him should be made?--a thing which\nwas so displeasing to Varro himself, that although he was overborne\nby the perverse custom of so great a city, he had not the least\nhesitation in both saying and writing, that those who have appointed\nimages for the people have both taken away fear and added error.\n\n\n    10. _What opinions those have followed who have set divers gods\n                   over divers parts of the world._\n\nWhy, also, is Juno united to him as his wife, who is called at once\n\"sister and yokefellow?\"[164] Because, say they, we have Jove in the\nether, Juno in the air; and these two elements are united, the one\nbeing superior, the other inferior. It is not he, then, of whom it is\nsaid, \"All things are full of Jove,\" if Juno also fills some part.\nDoes each fill either, and are both of this couple in both of these\nelements, and in each of them at the same time? Why, then, is the ether\ngiven to Jove, the air to Juno? Besides, these two should have been\nenough. Why is it that the sea is assigned to Neptune, the earth to\nPluto? And that these also might not be left without mates, Salacia\nis joined to Neptune, Proserpine to Pluto. For they say that, as Juno\npossesses the lower part of the heavens,--that is, the air,--so Salacia\npossesses the lower part of the sea, and Proserpine the lower part of\nthe earth. They seek how they may patch up these fables, but they find\nno way. For if these things were so, their ancient sages would have\nmaintained that there are three chief elements of the world, not four,\nin order that each of the elements might have a pair of gods. Now, they\nhave positively affirmed that the ether is one thing, the air another.\nBut water, whether higher or lower, is surely water. Suppose it ever\nso unlike, can it ever be so much so as no longer to be water? And\nthe lower earth, by whatever divinity it may be distinguished, what\nelse can it be than earth? Lo, then, since the whole physical world\nis complete in these four or three elements, where shall Minerva be?\nWhat should she possess, what should she fill? For she is placed in\nthe Capitol along with these two, although she is not the offspring of\ntheir marriage. Or if they say that she possesses the higher part of\nthe ether,--and on that account the poets have feigned that she sprang\nfrom the head of Jove,--why then is she not rather reckoned queen of\nthe gods, because she is superior to Jove? Is it because it would be\nimproper to set the daughter before the father? Why, then, is not that\nrule of justice observed concerning Jove himself toward Saturn? Is it\nbecause he was conquered? Have they fought then? By no means, say they;\nthat is an old wife's fable. Lo, we are not to believe fables, and\nmust hold more worthy opinions concerning the gods! Why, then, do they\nnot assign to the father of Jove a seat, if not of higher, at least\nof equal honour? Because Saturn, say they, is length of time.[165]\nTherefore they who worship Saturn worship Time; and it is insinuated\nthat Jupiter, the king of the gods, was born of Time. For is anything\nunworthy said when Jupiter and Juno are said to have been sprung from\nTime, if he is the heaven and she is the earth, since both heaven and\nearth have been made, and are therefore not eternal? For their learned\nand wise men have this also in their books. Nor is that saying taken by\nVirgil out of poetic figments, but out of the books of philosophers,\n\n          \"Then Ether, the Father Almighty, in copious showers descended\n           Into his spouse's glad bosom, making it fertile,\"[166]\n\n--that is, into the bosom of Tellus, or the earth. Although here,\nalso, they will have it that there are some differences, and think\nthat in the earth herself Terra is one thing, Tellus another, and\nTellumo another. And they have all these as gods, called by their\nown names, distinguished by their own offices, and venerated with\ntheir own altars and rites. This same earth also they call the\nmother of the gods, so that even the fictions of the poets are more\ntolerable, if, according, not to their poetical but sacred books,\nJuno is not only the sister and wife, but also the mother of Jove.\nThe same earth they worship as Ceres, and also as Vesta; while yet\nthey more frequently affirm that Vesta is nothing else than fire,\npertaining to the hearths, without which the city cannot exist; and\ntherefore virgins are wont to serve her, because as nothing is born\nof a virgin, so nothing is born of fire;--but all this nonsense\nought to be completely abolished and extinguished by Him who is\nborn of a virgin. For who can bear that, while they ascribe to the\nfire so much honour, and, as it were, chastity, they do not blush\nsometimes even to call Vesta Venus, so that honoured virginity may\nvanish in her handmaidens? For if Vesta is Venus, how can virgins\nrightly serve her by abstaining from venery? Are there two Venuses,\nthe one a virgin, the other not a maid? Or rather, are there three,\none the goddess of virgins, who is also called Vesta, another the\ngoddess of wives, and another of harlots? To her also the Phenicians\noffered a gift by prostituting their daughters before they united\nthem to husbands.[167] Which of these is the wife of Vulcan?\nCertainly not the virgin, since she has a husband. Far be it from\nus to say it is the harlot, lest we should seem to wrong the son of\nJuno and fellow-worker of Minerva. Therefore it is to be understood\nthat she belongs to the married people; but we would not wish them\nto imitate her in what she did with Mars. \"Again,\" say they, \"you\nreturn to fables.\" What sort of justice is that, to be angry with us\nbecause we say such things of their gods, and not to be angry with\nthemselves, who in their theatres most willingly behold the crimes of\ntheir gods? And,--a thing incredible, if it were not thoroughly well\nproved,--these very theatric representations of the crimes of their\ngods have been instituted in honour of these same gods.\n\n\n    11. _Concerning the many gods whom the pagan doctors defend as\n                     being one and the same Jove._\n\nLet them therefore assert as many things as ever they please in\nphysical reasonings and disputations. One while let Jupiter be the\nsoul of this corporeal world, who fills and moves that whole mass,\nconstructed and compacted out of four, or as many elements as they\nplease; another while, let him yield to his sister and brothers their\nparts of it: now let him be the ether, that from above he may embrace\nJuno, the air spread out beneath; again, let him be the whole heaven\nalong with the air, and impregnate with fertilizing showers and seeds\nthe earth, as his wife, and, at the same time, his mother (for this\nis not vile in divine beings); and yet again (that it may not be\nnecessary to run through them all), let him, the one god, of whom\nmany think it has been said by a most noble poet,\n\n          \"For God pervadeth all things,\n           All lands, and the tracts of the sea, and the depth of the\n                heavens,\"[168]--\n\nlet it be him who in the ether is Jupiter; in the air, Juno; in the\nsea, Neptune; in the lower parts of the sea, Salacia; in the earth,\nPluto; in the lower part of the earth, Proserpine; on the domestic\nhearths, Vesta; in the furnace of the workmen, Vulcan; among the\nstars, Sol, and Luna, and the Stars; in divination, Apollo; in\nmerchandise, Mercury; in Janus, the initiator; in Terminus, the\nterminator; Saturn, in time; Mars and Bellona, in war; Liber, in\nvineyards; Ceres, in corn-fields; Diana, in forests; Minerva, in\nlearning. Finally, let it be him who is in that crowd, as it were,\nof plebeian gods: let him preside under the name of Liber over the\nseed of men, and under that of Libera over that of women: let him be\nDiespiter, who brings forth the birth to the light of day: let him be\nthe goddess Mena, whom they set over the menstruation of women: let\nhim be Lucina, who is invoked by women in childbirth: let him bring\nhelp to those who are being born, by taking them up from the bosom\nof the earth, and let him be called Opis: let him open the mouth in\nthe crying babe, and be called the god Vaticanus: let him lift it\nfrom the earth, and be called the goddess Levana; let him watch over\ncradles, and be called the goddess Cunina: let it be no other than he\nwho is in those goddesses, who sing the fates of the new born, and\nare called Carmentes: let him preside over fortuitous events, and be\ncalled Fortuna: in the goddess Rumina, let him milk out the breast\nto the little one, because the ancients termed the breast _ruma_: in\nthe goddess Potina, let him administer drink: in the goddess Educa,\nlet him supply food: from the terror of infants, let him be styled\nPaventia: from the hope which comes, Venilia; from voluptuousness,\nVolupia; from action, Agenor: from the stimulants by which man is\nspurred on to much action, let him be named the goddess Stimula:\nlet him be the goddess Strenia, for making strenuous; Numeria, who\nteaches to number; Cam\u0153na, who teaches to sing: let him be both the\ngod Consus for granting counsel, and the goddess Sentia for inspiring\nsentences: let him be the goddess Juventas, who, after the robe of\nboyhood is laid aside, takes charge of the beginning of the youthful\nage: let him be Fortuna Barbata, who endues adults with a beard, whom\nthey have not chosen to honour; so that this divinity, whatever it\nmay be, should at least be a male god, named either Barbatus, from\n_barba_, like Nodotus, from _nodus_; or, certainly, not Fortuna, but\nbecause he has beards, Fortunius: let him, in the god Jugatinus,\nyoke couples in marriage; and when the girdle of the virgin wife is\nloosed, let him be invoked as the goddess Virginiensis: let him be\nMutunus or Tuternus, who, among the Greeks, is called Priapus. If\nthey are not ashamed of it, let all these which I have named, and\nwhatever others I have not named (for I have not thought fit to name\nall), let all these gods and goddesses be that one Jupiter, whether,\nas some will have it, all these are parts of him, or are his powers,\nas those think who are pleased to consider him the soul of the\nworld, which is the opinion of most of their doctors, and these the\ngreatest. If these things are so (how evil they may be I do not yet\nmeanwhile inquire), what would they lose, if they, by a more prudent\nabridgment, should worship one god? For what part of him could be\ncontemned if he himself should be worshipped? But if they are afraid\nlest parts of him should be angry at being passed by or neglected,\nthen it is not the case, as they will have it, that this whole is as\nthe life of one living being, which contains all the gods together,\nas if they were its virtues, or members, or parts; but each part\nhas its own life separate from the rest, if it is so that one can\nbe angered, appeased, or stirred up more than another. But if it is\nsaid that all together,--that is, the whole Jove himself,--would be\noffended if his parts were not also worshipped singly and minutely,\nit is foolishly spoken. Surely none of them could be passed by if\nhe who singly possesses them all should be worshipped. For, to omit\nother things which are innumerable, when they say that all the stars\nare parts of Jove, and are all alive, and have rational souls, and\ntherefore without controversy are gods, can they not see how many\nthey do not worship, to how many they do not build temples or set up\naltars, and to how very few, in fact, of the stars they have thought\nof setting them up and offering sacrifice? If, therefore, those are\ndispleased who are not severally worshipped, do they not fear to live\nwith only a few appeased, while all heaven is displeased? But if\nthey worship all the stars because they are part of Jove whom they\nworship, by the same compendious method they could supplicate them\nall in him alone. For in this way no one would be displeased, since\nin him alone all would be supplicated. No one would be contemned,\ninstead of there being just cause of displeasure given to the\nmuch greater number who are passed by in the worship offered to\nsome; especially when Priapus, stretched out in vile nakedness, is\npreferred to those who shine from their supernal abode.\n\n\n   12. _Concerning the opinion of those who have thought that God is\n       the soul of the world, and the world is the body of God._\n\nOught not men of intelligence, and indeed men of every kind, to be\nstirred up to examine the nature of this opinion? For there is no need\nof excellent capacity for this task, that putting away the desire of\ncontention, they may observe that if God is the soul of the world, and\nthe world is as a body to Him, who is the soul, He must be one living\nbeing consisting of soul and body, and that this same God is a kind\nof womb of nature containing all things in Himself, so that the lives\nand souls of all living things are taken, according to the manner of\neach one's birth, out of His soul which vivifies that whole mass, and\ntherefore nothing at all remains which is not a part of God. And if\nthis is so, who cannot see what impious and irreligious consequences\nfollow, such as that whatever one may trample, he must trample a part\nof God, and in slaying any living creature, a part of God must be\nslaughtered? But I am unwilling to utter all that may occur to those\nwho think of it, yet cannot be spoken without irreverence.\n\n\n    13. _Concerning those who assert that only rational animals are\n                        parts of the one God._\n\nBut if they contend that only rational animals, such as men, are\nparts of God, I do not really see how, if the whole world is God,\nthey can separate beasts from being parts of Him. But what need\nis there of striving about that? Concerning the rational animal\nhimself,--that is, man,--what more unhappy belief can be entertained\nthan that a part of God is whipped when a boy is whipped? And who,\nunless he is quite mad, could bear the thought that parts of God can\nbecome lascivious, iniquitous, impious, and altogether damnable? In\nbrief, why is God angry at those who do not worship Him, since these\noffenders are parts of Himself? It remains, therefore, that they\nmust say that all the gods have their own lives; that each one lives\nfor himself, and none of them is a part of any one; but that all are\nto be worshipped,--at least as many as can be known and worshipped;\nfor they are so many it is impossible that all can be so. And of\nall these, I believe that Jupiter, because he presides as king, is\nthought by them to have both established and extended the Roman\nempire. For if he has not done it, what other god do they believe\ncould have attempted so great a work, when they must all be occupied\nwith their own offices and works, nor can one intrude on that of\nanother? Could the kingdom of men then be propagated and increased by\nthe king of the gods?\n\n\n  14. _The enlargement of kingdoms is unsuitably ascribed to Jove;\n      for if, as they will have it, Victoria is a goddess, she alone\n      would suffice for this business._\n\nHere, first of all, I ask, why even the kingdom itself is not some\ngod? For why should not it also be so, if Victory is a goddess? Or\nwhat need is there of Jove himself in this affair, if Victory favours\nand is propitious, and always goes to those whom she wishes to be\nvictorious? With this goddess favourable and propitious, even if Jove\nwas idle and did nothing, what nations could remain unsubdued, what\nkingdom would not yield? But perhaps it is displeasing to good men to\nfight with most wicked unrighteousness, and provoke with voluntary\nwar neighbours who are peaceable and do no wrong, in order to enlarge\na kingdom? If they feel thus, I entirely approve and praise them.\n\n\n     15. _Whether it is suitable for good men to wish to rule more\n                               widely._\n\nLet them ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for good men to\nrejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity of those with whom just\nwars are carried on favours the growth of a kingdom, which would\ncertainly have been small if the peace and justice of neighbours had\nnot by any wrong provoked the carrying on of war against them; and\nhuman affairs being thus more happy, all kingdoms would have been\nsmall, rejoicing in neighbourly concord; and thus there would have\nbeen very many kingdoms of nations in the world, as there are very\nmany houses of citizens in a city. Therefore, to carry on war and\nextend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to\nbe felicity, to good men necessity. But because it would be worse\nthat the injurious should rule over those who are more righteous,\ntherefore even that is not unsuitably called felicity. But beyond\ndoubt it is greater felicity to have a good neighbour at peace, than\nto conquer a bad one by making war. Your wishes are bad, when you\ndesire that one whom you hate or fear should be in such a condition\nthat you can conquer him. If, therefore, by carrying on wars that\nwere just, not impious or unrighteous, the Romans could have acquired\nso great an empire, ought they not to worship as a goddess even\nthe injustice of foreigners? For we see that this has co-operated\nmuch in extending the empire, by making foreigners so unjust that\nthey became people with whom just wars might be carried on, and\nthe empire increased. And why may not injustice, at least that of\nforeign nations, also be a goddess, if Fear and Dread, and Ague\nhave deserved to be Roman gods? By these two, therefore,--that is,\nby foreign injustice, and the goddess Victoria, for injustice stirs\nup causes of wars, and Victoria brings these same wars to a happy\ntermination,--the empire has increased, even although Jove has been\nidle. For what part could Jove have here, when those things which\nmight be thought to be his benefits are held to be gods, called\ngods, worshipped as gods, and are themselves invoked for their own\nparts? He also might have some part here, if he himself might be\ncalled Empire, just as she is called Victory. Or if empire is the\ngift of Jove, why may not victory also be held to be his gift? And it\ncertainly would have been held to be so, had he been recognised and\nworshipped, not as a stone in the Capitol, but as the true King of\nkings and Lord of lords.\n\n\n  16. _What was the reason why the Romans, in detailing separate gods\n      for all things and all movements of the mind, chose to have the\n      temple of Quiet outside the gates._\n\nBut I wonder very much, that while they assigned to separate gods\nsingle things, and (well nigh) all movements of the mind; that while\nthey invoked the goddess Agenoria, who should excite to action; the\ngoddess Stimula, who should stimulate to unusual action; the goddess\nMurcia, who should not move men beyond measure, but make them, as\nPomponius says, _murcid_--that is, too slothful and inactive; the\ngoddess Strenua, who should make them strenuous; and that while they\noffered to all these gods and goddesses solemn and public worship,\nthey should yet have been unwilling to give public acknowledgment\nto her whom they name Quies because she makes men quiet, but built\nher temple outside the Colline gate. Whether was this a symptom of\nan unquiet mind, or rather was it thus intimated that he who should\npersevere in worshipping that crowd, not, to be sure, of gods, but\nof demons, could not dwell with quiet; to which the true Physician\ncalls, saying, \"Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye\nshall find rest unto your souls?\"\n\n\n   17. _Whether, if the highest power belongs to Jove, Victoria also\n                       ought to be worshipped._\n\nOr do they say, perhaps, that Jupiter sends the goddess Victoria,\nand that she, as it were, acting in obedience to the king of the\ngods, comes to those to whom he may have despatched her, and takes\nup her quarters on their side? This is truly said, not of Jove, whom\nthey, according to their own imagination, feign to be king of the\ngods, but of Him who is the true eternal King, because he sends, not\nVictory, who is no person, but His angel, and causes whom He pleases\nto conquer; whose counsel may be hidden, but cannot be unjust. For\nif Victory is a goddess, why is not Triumph also a god, and joined\nto Victory either as husband, or brother, or son? Indeed, they have\nimagined such things concerning the gods, that if the poets had\nfeigned the like, and they should have been discussed by us, they\nwould have replied that they were laughable figments of the poets not\nto be attributed to true deities. And yet they themselves did not\nlaugh when they were, not reading in the poets, but worshipping in\nthe temples such doating follies. Therefore they should entreat Jove\nalone for all things, and supplicate him only. For if Victory is a\ngoddess, and is under him as her king, wherever he might have sent\nher, she could not dare to resist and do her own will rather than his.\n\n\n       18. _With what reason they who think Felicity and Fortune\n                  goddesses have distinguished them._\n\nWhat shall we say, besides, of the idea that Felicity also is a\ngoddess? She has received a temple; she has merited an altar;\nsuitable rites of worship are paid to her. She alone, then, should be\nworshipped. For where she is present, what good thing can be absent?\nBut what does a man wish, that he thinks Fortune also a goddess\nand worships her? Is felicity one thing, fortune another? Fortune,\nindeed, may be bad as well as good; but felicity, if it could be\nbad, would not be felicity. Certainly we ought to think all the\ngods of either sex (if they also have sex) are only good. This says\nPlato; this say other philosophers; this say all estimable rulers\nof the republic and the nations. How is it, then, that the goddess\nFortune is sometimes good, sometimes bad? Is it perhaps the case\nthat when she is bad she is not a goddess, but is suddenly changed\ninto a malignant demon? How many Fortunes are there then? Just as\nmany as there are men who are fortunate, that is, of good fortune.\nBut since there must also be very many others who at the very same\ntime are men of bad fortune, could she, being one and the same\nFortune, be at the same time both bad and good--the one to these,\nthe other to those? She who is the goddess, is she always good?\nThen she herself is felicity. Why, then, are two names given her?\nYet this is tolerable; for it is customary that one thing should be\ncalled by two names. But why different temples, different altars,\ndifferent rituals? There is a reason, say they, because Felicity\nis she whom the good have by previous merit; but fortune, which is\ntermed good without any trial of merit, befalls both good and bad\nmen fortuitously, whence also she is named Fortune. How, therefore,\nis she good, who without any discernment comes both to the good and\nto the bad? Why is she worshipped, who is thus blind, running at\nrandom on any one whatever, so that for the most part she passes by\nher worshippers, and cleaves to those who despise her? Or if her\nworshippers profit somewhat, so that they are seen by her and loved,\nthen she follows merit, and does not come fortuitously. What, then,\nbecomes of that definition of fortune? What becomes of the opinion\nthat she has received her very name from fortuitous events? For it\nprofits one nothing to worship her if she is truly _fortune_. But if\nshe distinguishes her worshippers, so that she may benefit them, she\nis not fortune. Or does Jupiter send her too, whither he pleases?\nThen let him alone be worshipped; because Fortune is not able to\nresist him when he commands her, and sends her where he pleases. Or,\nat least, let the bad worship her, who do not choose to have merit by\nwhich the goddess Felicity might be invited.\n\n\n                19. _Concerning Fortuna Muliebris._[169]\n\nTo this supposed deity, whom they call Fortuna, they ascribe so much,\nindeed, that they have a tradition that the image of her, which was\ndedicated by the Roman matrons, and called Fortuna Muliebris, has\nspoken, and has said, once and again, that the matrons pleased her by\ntheir homage; which, indeed, if it is true, ought not to excite our\nwonder. For it is not so difficult for malignant demons to deceive,\nand they ought the rather to advert to their wits and wiles, because\nit is that goddess who comes by haphazard who has spoken, and not she\nwho comes to reward merit. For Fortuna was loquacious, and Felicitas\nmute; and for what other reason but that men might not care to live\nrightly, having made Fortuna their friend, who could make them\nfortunate without any good desert? And truly, if Fortuna speaks, she\nshould at least speak, not with a womanly, but with a manly voice;\nlest they themselves who have dedicated the image should think so\ngreat a miracle has been wrought by feminine loquacity.\n\n\n  20. _Concerning Virtue and Faith, which the pagans have honoured\n      with temples and sacred rites, passing by other good qualities,\n      which ought likewise to have been worshipped, if deity was\n      rightly attributed to these._\n\nThey have made Virtue also a goddess, which, indeed, if it could be\na goddess, had been preferable to many. And now, because it is not\na goddess, but a gift of God, let _it_ be obtained by prayer from\nHim, by whom alone it can be given, and the whole crowd of false gods\nvanishes. But why is Faith believed to be a goddess, and why does she\nherself receive temple and altar? For whoever prudently acknowledges\nher makes his own self an abode for her. But how do they know what\nfaith is, of which it is the prime and greatest function that the\ntrue God may be believed in? But why had not virtue sufficed? Does\nit not include faith also? Forasmuch as they have thought proper to\ndistribute virtue into four divisions--prudence, justice, fortitude,\nand temperance--and as each of these divisions has its own virtues,\nfaith is among the parts of justice, and has the chief place with\nas many of us as know what that saying means, \"The just shall live\nby faith.\"[170] But if Faith is a goddess, I wonder why these keen\nlovers of a multitude of gods have wronged so many other goddesses,\nby passing them by, when they could have dedicated temples and altars\nto them likewise. Why has temperance not deserved to be a goddess,\nwhen some Roman princes have obtained no small glory on account of\nher? Why, in fine, is fortitude not a goddess, who aided Mucius\nwhen he thrust his right hand into the flames; who aided Curtius,\nwhen for the sake of his country he threw himself headlong into the\nyawning earth; who aided Decius the sire, and Decius the son, when\nthey devoted themselves for the army?--though we might question\nwhether these men had _true_ fortitude, if this concerned our present\ndiscussion. Why have prudence and wisdom merited no place among the\ngods? Is it because they are all worshipped under the general name\nof Virtue itself? Then they could thus worship the true God also, of\nwhom all the other gods are thought to be parts. But in that one name\nof virtue is comprehended both faith and chastity, which yet have\nobtained separate altars in temples of their own.\n\n\n   21. _That although not understanding them to be the gifts of God,\n  they ought at least to have been content with Virtue and Felicity._\n\nThese, not verity but vanity has made goddesses. For these are gifts\nof the true God, not themselves goddesses. However, where virtue and\nfelicity are, what else is sought for? What can suffice the man whom\nvirtue and felicity do not suffice? For surely virtue comprehends\nall things we need do, felicity all things we need wish for. If\nJupiter, then, was worshipped in order that he might give these two\nthings,--because, if extent and duration of empire is something good,\nit pertains to this same felicity,--why is it not understood that\nthey are not goddesses, but the gifts of God? But if they are judged\nto be goddesses, then at least that other great crowd of gods should\nnot be sought after. For, having considered all the offices which\ntheir fancy has distributed among the various gods and goddesses,\nlet them find out, if they can, anything which could be bestowed by\nany god whatever on a man possessing virtue, possessing felicity.\nWhat instruction could be sought either from Mercury or Minerva, when\nVirtue already possessed all in herself? Virtue, indeed, is defined\nby the ancients as itself the art of living well and rightly. Hence,\nbecause virtue is called in Greek \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74, it has been thought the\nLatins have derived from it the term _art_. But if Virtue cannot\ncome except to the clever, what need was there of the god Father\nCatius, who should make men cautious, that is, acute, when Felicity\ncould confer this? Because, to be born clever belongs to felicity.\nWhence, although goddess Felicity could not be worshipped by one not\nyet born, in order that, being made his friend, she might bestow\nthis on him, yet she might confer this favour on parents who were\nher worshippers, that clever children should be born to them. What\nneed had women in childbirth to invoke Lucina, when, if Felicity\nshould be present, they would have, not only a good delivery, but\ngood children too? What need was there to commend the children to\nthe goddess Ops when they were being born; to the god Vaticanus in\ntheir birth-cry; to the goddess Cunina when lying cradled; to the\ngoddess Rumina when sucking; to the god Statilinus when standing; to\nthe goddess Adeona when coming; to Abeona when going away; to the\ngoddess Mens that they might have a good mind; to the god Volumnus,\nand the goddess Volumna, that they might wish for good things; to\nthe nuptial gods, that they might make good matches; to the rural\ngods, and chiefly to the goddess Fructesca herself, that they might\nreceive the most abundant fruits; to Mars and Bellona, that they\nmight carry on war well; to the goddess Victoria, that they might\nbe victorious; to the god Honor, that they might be honoured; to\nthe goddess Pecunia, that they might have plenty money; to the god\nAesculanus, and his son Argentinus, that they might have brass and\nsilver coin? For they set down Aesculanus as the father of Argentinus\nfor this reason, that brass coin began to be used before silver.\nBut I wonder Argentinus has not begotten Aurinus, since gold coin\nalso has followed. Could they have him for a god, they would prefer\nAurinus both to his father Argentinus and his grandfather Aesculanus,\njust as they set Jove before Saturn. Therefore, what necessity was\nthere on account of these gifts, either of soul, or body, or outward\nestate, to worship and invoke so great a crowd of gods, all of whom I\nhave not mentioned, nor have they themselves been able to provide for\nall human benefits, minutely and singly methodized, minute and single\ngods, when the one goddess Felicity was able, with the greatest ease,\ncompendiously to bestow the whole of them? nor should any other be\nsought after, either for the bestowing of good things, or for the\naverting of evil. For why should they invoke the goddess Fessonia for\nthe weary; for driving away enemies, the goddess Pellonia; for the\nsick, as a physician, either Apollo or \u00c6sculapius, or both together\nif there should be great danger? Neither should the god Spiniensis be\nentreated that he might root out the thorns from the fields; nor the\ngoddess Rubigo that the mildew might not come,--Felicitas alone being\npresent and guarding, either no evils would have arisen, or they\nwould have been quite easily driven away. Finally, since we treat of\nthese two goddesses, Virtue and Felicity, if felicity is the reward\nof virtue, she is not a goddess, but a gift of God. But if she is a\ngoddess, why may she not be said to confer virtue itself, inasmuch as\nit is a great felicity to attain virtue?\n\n\n     22. _Concerning the knowledge of the worship due to the gods,\n    which Varro glories in having himself conferred on the Romans._\n\nWhat is it, then, that Varro boasts he has bestowed as a very great\nbenefit on his fellow-citizens, because he not only recounts the gods\nwho ought to be worshipped by the Romans, but also tells what pertains\nto each of them? \"Just as it is of no advantage,\" he says, \"to know the\nname and appearance of any man who is a physician, and not know that he\nis a physician, so,\" he says, \"it is of no advantage to know well that\n\u00c6sculapius is a god, if you are not aware that he can bestow the gift\nof health, and consequently do not know why you ought to supplicate\nhim.\" He also affirms this by another comparison, saying, \"No one is\nable, not only to live well, but even to live at all, if he does not\nknow who is a smith, who a baker, who a weaver, from whom he can seek\nany utensil, whom he may take for a helper, whom for a leader, whom for\na teacher;\" asserting, \"that in this way it can be doubtful to no one,\nthat thus the knowledge of the gods is useful, if one can know what\nforce, and faculty, or power any god may have in anything. For from\nthis we may be able,\" he says, \"to know what god we ought to call to,\nand invoke for any cause; lest we should do as too many are wont to\ndo, and desire water from Liber, and wine from Lymphs.\" Very useful,\nforsooth! Who would not give this man thanks if he could show true\nthings, and if he could teach that the one true God, from whom all good\nthings are, is to be worshipped by men?\n\n\n  23. _Concerning Felicity, whom the Romans, who venerate many gods,\n      for a long time did not worship with divine honour, though she\n      alone would have sufficed instead of all._\n\nBut how does it happen, if their books and rituals are true, and\nFelicity is a goddess, that she herself is not appointed as the\nonly one to be worshipped, since she could confer all things, and\nall at once make men happy? For who wishes anything for any other\nreason than that he may become happy? Why was it left to Lucullus\nto dedicate a temple to so great a goddess at so late a date, and\nafter so many Roman rulers? Why did Romulus himself, ambitious as he\nwas of founding a fortunate city, not erect a temple to this goddess\nbefore all others? Why did he supplicate the other gods for anything,\nsince he would have lacked nothing had she been with him? For even\nhe himself would neither have been first a king, then afterwards,\nas they think, a god, if this goddess had not been propitious to\nhim. Why, therefore, did he appoint as gods for the Romans, Janus,\nJove, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and others, if there\nwere more of them? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sun, Moon,\nVulcan, Light, and whatever others he added, among whom was even the\ngoddess Cloacina, while Felicity was neglected? Why did Numa appoint\nso many gods and so many goddesses without this one? Was it perhaps\nbecause he could not see her among so great a crowd? Certainly king\nHostilius would not have introduced the new gods Fear and Dread to\nbe propitiated, if he could have known or might have worshipped this\ngoddess. For, in presence of Felicity, Fear and Dread would have\ndisappeared,--I do not say propitiated, but put to flight. Next, I\nask, how is it that the Roman empire had already immensely increased\nbefore any one worshipped Felicity? Was the empire, therefore, more\ngreat than happy? For how could true felicity be there, where there\nwas not true piety? For piety is the genuine worship of the true God,\nand not the worship of as many demons as there are false gods. Yet\neven afterwards, when Felicity had already been taken into the number\nof the gods, the great infelicity of the civil wars ensued. Was\nFelicity perhaps justly indignant, both because she was invited so\nlate, and was invited not to honour, but rather to reproach, because\nalong with her were worshipped Priapus, and Cloacina, and Fear and\nDread, and Ague, and others which were not gods to be worshipped,\nbut the crimes of the worshippers? Last of all, if it seemed good\nto worship so great a goddess along with a most unworthy crowd, why\nat least was she not worshipped in a more honourable way than the\nrest? For is it not intolerable that Felicity is placed neither among\nthe gods _Consentes_,[171] whom they allege to be admitted into the\ncouncil of Jupiter, nor among the gods whom they term _Select_? Some\ntemple might be made for her which might be pre-eminent, both in\nloftiness of site and dignity of style. Why, indeed, not something\nbetter than is made for Jupiter himself? For who gave the kingdom\neven to Jupiter but Felicity? I am supposing that when he reigned\nhe was happy. Felicity, however, is certainly more valuable than\na kingdom. For no one doubts that a man might easily be found who\nmay fear to be made a king; but no one is found who is unwilling\nto be happy. Therefore, if it is thought they can be consulted by\naugury, or in any other way, the gods themselves should be consulted\nabout this thing, whether they may wish to give place to Felicity.\nIf, perchance, the place should already be occupied by the temples\nand altars of others, where a greater and more lofty temple might\nbe built to Felicity, even Jupiter himself might give way, so that\nFelicity might rather obtain the very pinnacle of the Capitoline\nhill. For there is not any one who would resist Felicity, except,\nwhich is impossible, one who might wish to be unhappy. Certainly, if\nhe should be consulted, Jupiter would in no case do what those three\ngods, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas, did, who positively refused to\ngive place to their superior and king. For, as their books record,\nwhen king Tarquin wished to construct the Capitol, and perceived that\nthe place which seemed to him to be the most worthy and suitable was\npreoccupied by other gods, not daring to do anything contrary to\ntheir pleasure, and believing that they would willingly give place\nto a god who was so great, and was their own master, because there\nwere many of them there when the Capitol was founded, he inquired by\naugury whether they chose to give place to Jupiter, and they were\nall willing to remove thence except those whom I have named, Mars,\nTerminus, and Juventas; and therefore the Capitol was built in such a\nway that these three also might be within it, yet with such obscure\nsigns that even the most learned men could scarcely know this.\nSurely, then, Jupiter himself would by no means despise Felicity as\nhe was himself despised by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. But even\nthey themselves who had not given place to Jupiter, would certainly\ngive place to Felicity, who had made Jupiter king over them. Or if\nthey should not give place, they would act thus not out of contempt\nof her, but because they chose rather to be obscure in the house of\nFelicity, than to be eminent without her in their own places.\n\nThus the goddess Felicity being established in the largest and\nloftiest place, the citizens should learn whence the furtherance\nof every good desire should be sought. And so, by the persuasion\nof nature herself, the superfluous multitude of other gods being\nabandoned, Felicity alone would be worshipped, prayer would be made\nto her alone, her temple alone would be frequented by the citizens\nwho wished to be happy, which no one of them would not wish; and\nthus felicity, who was sought for from all the gods, would be sought\nfor only from her own self. For who wishes to receive from any god\nanything else than felicity, or what he supposes to tend to felicity?\nWherefore, if Felicity has it in her power to be with what man she\npleases (and she has it if she is a goddess), what folly is it, after\nall, to seek from any other god her whom you can obtain by request\nfrom her own self! Therefore they ought to honour this goddess above\nother gods, even by dignity of place. For, as we read in their own\nauthors, the ancient Romans paid greater honours to I know not what\nSummanus, to whom they attributed nocturnal thunderbolts, than to\nJupiter, to whom diurnal thunderbolts were held to pertain. But,\nafter a famous and conspicuous temple had been built to Jupiter,\nowing to the dignity of the building, the multitude resorted to him\nin so great numbers, that scarce one can be found who remembers even\nto have read the name of Summanus, which now he cannot once hear\nnamed. But if Felicity is not a goddess, because, as is true, it is\na gift of God, that god must be sought who has power to give it, and\nthat hurtful multitude of false gods must be abandoned which the vain\nmultitude of foolish men follows after, making gods to itself of\nthe gifts of God, and offending Himself whose gifts they are by the\nstubbornness of a proud will. For he cannot be free from infelicity\nwho worships Felicity as a goddess, and forsakes God, the giver of\nfelicity; just as he cannot be free from hunger who licks a painted\nloaf of bread, and does not buy it of the man who has a real one.\n\n\n     24. _The reasons by which the pagans attempt to defend their\n       worshipping among the gods the divine gifts themselves._\n\nWe may, however, consider their reasons. Is it to be believed, say\nthey, that our forefathers were besotted even to such a degree as\nnot to know that these things are divine gifts, and not gods? But as\nthey knew that such things are granted to no one, except by some god\nfreely bestowing them, they called the gods whose names they did not\nfind out by the names of those things which they deemed to be given\nby them; sometimes slightly altering the name for that purpose,\nas, for example, from war they have named Bellona, not _bellum_;\nfrom cradles, Cunina, not _cun\u00e6_; from standing corn, Segetia, not\n_seges_; from apples, Pomona, not _pomum_; from oxen, Bubona, not\n_bos_. Sometimes, again, with no alteration of the word, just as the\nthings themselves are named, so that the goddess who gives money is\ncalled Pecunia, and money is not thought to be itself a goddess: so\nof Virtus, who gives virtue; Honor, who gives honour; Concordia,\nwho gives concord; Victoria, who gives victory. So, they say, when\nFelicitas is called a goddess, what is meant is not the thing itself\nwhich is given, but that deity by whom felicity is given.\n\n\n   25. _Concerning the one God only to be worshipped, who, although\n   His name is unknown, is yet deemed to be the giver of felicity._\n\nHaving had that reason rendered to us, we shall perhaps much more\neasily persuade, as we wish, those whose heart has not become too\nmuch hardened. For if now human infirmity has perceived that felicity\ncannot be given except by some god; if this was perceived by those\nwho worshipped so many gods, at whose head they set Jupiter himself;\nif, in their ignorance of the name of Him by whom felicity was given,\nthey agreed to call Him by the name of that very thing which they\nbelieved He gave;--then it follows that they thought that felicity\ncould not be given even by Jupiter himself, whom they already\nworshipped, but certainly by him whom they thought fit to worship\nunder the name of Felicity itself. I thoroughly affirm the statement\nthat they believed felicity to be given by a certain God whom they\nknew not: let Him therefore be sought after, let Him be worshipped,\nand it is enough. Let the train of innumerable demons be repudiated,\nand let this God suffice every man whom his gift suffices. For him,\nI say, God the giver of felicity will not be enough to worship,\nfor whom felicity itself is not enough to receive. But let him for\nwhom it suffices (and man has nothing more he ought to wish for)\nserve the one God, the giver of felicity. This God is not he whom\nthey call Jupiter. For if they acknowledged him to be the giver of\nfelicity, they would not seek, under the name of Felicity itself, for\nanother god or goddess by whom felicity might be given; nor could\nthey tolerate that Jupiter himself should be worshipped with such\ninfamous attributes. For he is said to be the debaucher of the wives\nof others; he is the shameless lover and ravisher of a beautiful boy.\n\n\n   26. _Of the scenic plays, the celebration of which the gods have\n                   exacted from their worshippers._\n\n\"But,\" says Cicero, \"Homer invented these things, and transferred\nthings human to the gods: I would rather transfer things divine to\nus.\"[172] The poet, by ascribing such crimes to the gods, has justly\ndispleased the grave man. Why, then, are the scenic plays, where\nthese crimes are habitually spoken of, acted, exhibited, in honour\nof the gods, reckoned among things divine by the most learned men?\nCicero should exclaim, not against the inventions of the poets, but\nagainst the customs of the ancients. Would not they have exclaimed in\nreply, What have we done? The gods themselves have loudly demanded\nthat these plays should be exhibited in their honour, have fiercely\nexacted them, have menaced destruction unless this was performed,\nhave avenged its neglect with great severity, and have manifested\npleasure at the reparation of such neglect. Among their virtuous\nand wonderful deeds the following is related. It was announced in a\ndream to Titus Latinius, a Roman rustic, that he should go to the\nsenate and tell them to recommence the games of Rome, because on the\nfirst day of their celebration a condemned criminal had been led to\npunishment in sight of the people, an incident so sad as to disturb\nthe gods who were seeking amusement from the games. And when the\npeasant who had received this intimation was afraid on the following\nday to deliver it to the senate, it was renewed next night in a\nseverer form: he lost his son, because of his neglect. On the third\nnight he was warned that a yet graver punishment was impending, if\nhe should still refuse obedience. When even thus he did not dare to\nobey, he fell into a virulent and horrible disease. But then, on the\nadvice of his friends, he gave information to the magistrates, and\nwas carried in a litter into the senate, and having, on declaring\nhis dream, immediately recovered strength, went away on his own\nfeet whole.[173] The senate, amazed at so great a miracle, decreed\nthat the games should be renewed at fourfold cost. What sensible\nman does not see that men, being put upon by malignant demons, from\nwhose domination nothing save the grace of God through Jesus Christ\nour Lord sets free, have been compelled by force to exhibit to such\ngods as these, plays which, if well advised, they should condemn as\nshameful? Certain it is that in these plays the poetic crimes of the\ngods are celebrated, yet they are plays which were re-established\nby decree of the senate, under compulsion of the gods. In these\nplays the most shameless actors celebrated Jupiter as the corrupter\nof chastity, and thus gave him pleasure. If that was a fiction, he\nwould have been moved to anger; but if he was delighted with the\nrepresentation of his crimes, even although fabulous, then, when he\nhappened to be worshipped, who but the devil could be served? Is\nit so that he could found, extend, and preserve the Roman empire,\nwho was more vile than any Roman man whatever, to whom such things\nwere displeasing? Could he give felicity who was so infelicitously\nworshipped, and who, unless he should be thus worshipped, was yet\nmore infelicitously provoked to anger?\n\n\n    27. _Concerning the three kinds of gods about which the pontiff\n                       Sc\u00e6vola has discoursed._\n\nIt is recorded that the very learned pontiff Sc\u00e6vola[174] had\ndistinguished about three kinds of gods--one introduced by the poets,\nanother by the philosophers, another by the statesmen. The first kind\nhe declares to be trifling, because many unworthy things have been\ninvented by the poets concerning the gods; the second does not suit\nstates, because it contains some things that are superfluous, and\nsome, too, which it would be prejudicial for the people to know. It\nis no great matter about the superfluous things, for it is a common\nsaying of skilful lawyers, \"Superfluous things do no harm.\"[175]\nBut what are those things which do harm when brought before the\nmultitude? \"These,\" he says, \"that Hercules, \u00c6sculapius, Castor and\nPollux, are not gods; for it is declared by learned men that these\nwere but men, and yielded to the common lot of mortals.\" What else?\n\"That states have not the true images of the gods; because the true\nGod has neither sex, nor age, nor definite corporeal members.\" The\npontiff is not willing that the people should know these things; for\nhe does not think they are false. He thinks it expedient, therefore,\nthat states should be deceived in matters of religion; which Varro\nhimself does not hesitate even to say in his books about things\ndivine. Excellent religion! to which the weak, who requires to be\ndelivered, may flee for succour; and when he seeks for the truth by\nwhich he may be delivered, it is believed to be expedient for him\nthat he be deceived. And, truly, in these same books, Sc\u00e6vola is not\nsilent as to his reason for rejecting the poetic sort of gods,--to\nwit, \"because they so disfigure the gods that they could not bear\ncomparison even with good men, when they make one to commit theft,\nanother adultery; or, again, to say or do something else basely and\nfoolishly; as that three goddesses contested (with each other) the\nprize of beauty, and the two vanquished by Venus destroyed Troy; that\nJupiter turned himself into a bull or swan that he might copulate\nwith some one; that a goddess married a man, and Saturn devoured his\nchildren; that, in fine, there is nothing that could be imagined,\neither of the miraculous or vicious, which may not be found there,\nand yet is far removed from the nature of the gods.\" O chief pontiff\nSc\u00e6vola, take away the plays if thou art able; instruct the people\nthat they may not offer such honours to the immortal gods, in which,\nif they like, they may admire the crimes of the gods, and, so far as\nit is possible, may, if they please, imitate them. But if the people\nshall have answered thee, You, O pontiff, have brought these things\nin among us, then ask the gods themselves at whose instigation you\nhave ordered these things, that they may not order such things to\nbe offered to them. For if they are bad, and therefore in no way to\nbe believed concerning the majority of the gods, the greater is the\nwrong done the gods about whom they are feigned with impunity. But\nthey do not hear thee, they are demons, they teach wicked things,\nthey rejoice in vile things; not only do they not count it a wrong if\nthese things are feigned about them, but it is a wrong they are quite\nunable to bear if they are not acted at their stated festivals. But\nnow, if thou wouldst call on Jupiter against them, chiefly for that\nreason that more of his crimes are wont to be acted in the scenic\nplays, is it not the case that, although you call him god Jupiter, by\nwhom this whole world is ruled and administered, it is he to whom the\ngreatest wrong is done by you, because you have thought he ought to\nbe worshipped along with them, and have styled him their king?\n\n\n    28. _Whether the worship of the gods has been of service to the\n            Romans in obtaining and extending the empire._\n\nTherefore such gods, who are propitiated by such honours, or rather are\nimpeached by them (for it is a greater crime to delight in having such\nthings said of them falsely, than even if they could be said truly),\ncould never by any means have been able to increase and preserve\nthe Roman empire. For if they could have done it, they would rather\nhave bestowed so grand a gift on the Greeks, who, in this kind of\ndivine things,--that is, in scenic plays,--have worshipped them more\nhonourably and worthily, although they have not exempted themselves\nfrom those slanders of the poets, by whom they saw the gods torn in\npieces, giving them licence to ill-use any man they pleased, and have\nnot deemed the scenic players themselves to be base, but have held\nthem worthy even of distinguished honour. But just as the Romans were\nable to have gold money, although they did not worship a god Aurinus,\nso also they could have silver and brass coin, and yet worship neither\nArgentinus nor his father \u00c6sculanus; and so of all the rest, which it\nwould be irksome for me to detail. It follows, therefore, both that\nthey could not by any means attain such dominion if the true God was\nunwilling; and that if these gods, false and many, were unknown or\ncontemned, and He alone was known and worshipped with sincere faith\nand virtue, they would both have a better kingdom here, whatever might\nbe its extent, and whether they might have one here or not, would\nafterwards receive an eternal kingdom.\n\n\n      29. _Of the falsity of the augury by which the strength and\n    stability of the Roman empire was considered to be indicated._\n\nFor what kind of augury is that which they have declared to be most\nbeautiful, and to which I referred a little ago, that Mars, and\nTerminus, and Juventas would not give place even to Jove the king\nof the gods? For thus, they say, it was signified that the nation\ndedicated to Mars,--that is, the Roman,--should yield to none\nthe place it once occupied; likewise, that on account of the god\nTerminus, no one would be able to disturb the Roman frontiers; and\nalso, that the Roman youth, because of the goddess Juventas, should\nyield to no one. Let them see, therefore, how they can hold him to\nbe the king of their gods, and the giver of their own kingdom, if\nthese auguries set him down for an adversary, to whom it would have\nbeen honourable not to yield. However, if these things are true, they\nneed not be at all afraid. For they are not going to confess that the\ngods who would not yield to Jove have yielded to Christ. For, without\naltering the boundaries of the empire, Jesus Christ has proved\nHimself able to drive them, not only from their temples, but from the\nhearts of their worshippers. But, before Christ came in the flesh,\nand, indeed, before these things which we have quoted from their\nbooks could have been written, but yet after that auspice was made\nunder king Tarquin, the Roman army has been divers times scattered or\nput to flight, and has shown the falseness of the auspice, which they\nderived from the fact that the goddess Juventas had not given place\nto Jove; and the nation dedicated to Mars was trodden down in the\ncity itself by the invading and triumphant Gauls; and the boundaries\nof the empire, through the falling away of many cities to Hannibal,\nhad been hemmed into a narrow space. Thus the beauty of the auspices\nis made void, and there has remained only the contumacy against Jove,\nnot of gods, but of demons. For it is one thing not to have yielded,\nand another to have returned whither you have yielded. Besides, even\nafterwards, in the oriental regions, the boundaries of the Roman\nempire were changed by the will of Hadrian; for he yielded up to the\nPersian empire those three noble provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and\nAssyria. Thus that god Terminus, who according to these books was the\nguardian of the Roman frontiers, and by that most beautiful auspice\nhad not given place to Jove, would seem to have been more afraid of\nHadrian, a king of men, than of the king of the gods. The aforesaid\nprovinces having also been taken back again, almost within our own\nrecollection the frontier fell back, when Julian, given up to the\noracles of their gods, with immoderate daring ordered the victualling\nships to be set on fire. The army being thus left destitute of\nprovisions, and he himself also being presently killed by the enemy,\nand the legions being hard pressed, while dismayed by the loss of\ntheir commander, they were reduced to such extremities that no one\ncould have escaped, unless by articles of peace the boundaries of\nthe empire had then been established where they still remain; not,\nindeed, with so great a loss as was suffered by the concession of\nHadrian, but still at a considerable sacrifice. It was a vain augury,\nthen, that the god Terminus did not yield to Jove, since he yielded\nto the will of Hadrian, and yielded also to the rashness of Julian,\nand the necessity of Jovinian. The more intelligent and grave Romans\nhave seen these things, but have had little power against the custom\nof the state, which was bound to observe the rites of the demons;\nbecause even they themselves, although they perceived that these\nthings were vain, yet thought that the religious worship which is due\nto God should be paid to the nature of things which is established\nunder the rule and government of the one true God, \"serving,\" as\nsaith the apostle, \"the creature more than the Creator, who is\nblessed for evermore.\"[176] The help of this true God was necessary\nto send holy and truly pious men, who would die for the true religion\nthat they might remove the false from among the living.\n\n\n    30. _What kind of things even their worshippers have owned they\n             have thought about the gods of the nations._\n\nCicero the augur laughs at auguries, and reproves men for regulating\nthe purposes of life by the cries of crows and jackdaws.[177] But\nit will be said that an academic philosopher, who argues that all\nthings are uncertain, is unworthy to have any authority in these\nmatters. In the second book of his _De Natura Deorum_,[178] he\nintroduces Lucilius Balbus, who, after showing that superstitions\nhave their origin in physical and philosophical truths, expresses\nhis indignation at the setting up of images and fabulous notions,\nspeaking thus: \"Do you not therefore see that from true and useful\nphysical discoveries the reason may be drawn away to fabulous and\nimaginary gods? This gives birth to false opinions and turbulent\nerrors, and superstitions well-nigh old-wifeish. For both the forms\nof the gods, and their ages, and clothing, and ornaments, are made\nfamiliar to us; their genealogies, too, their marriages, kinships,\nand all things about them, are debased to the likeness of human\nweakness. They are even introduced as having perturbed minds; for\nwe have accounts of the lusts, cares, and angers of the gods. Nor,\nindeed, as the fables go, have the gods been without their wars and\nbattles. And that not only when, as in Homer, some gods on either\nside have defended two opposing armies, but they have even carried\non wars on their own account, as with the Titans or with the Giants.\nSuch things it is quite absurd either to say or to believe: they are\nutterly frivolous and groundless.\" Behold, now, what is confessed by\nthose who defend the gods of the nations. Afterwards he goes on to\nsay that some things belong to superstition, but others to religion,\nwhich he thinks good to teach according to the Stoics. \"For not only\nthe philosophers,\" he says, \"but also our forefathers, have made a\ndistinction between superstition and religion. For those,\" he says,\n\"who spent whole days in prayer, and offered sacrifice, that their\nchildren might outlive them, are called superstitious.\"[179] Who does\nnot see that he is trying, while he fears the public prejudice, to\npraise the religion of the ancients, and that he wishes to disjoin\nit from superstition, but cannot find out how to do so? For if\nthose who prayed and sacrificed all day were called superstitious\nby the ancients, were those also called so who instituted (what\nhe blames) the images of the gods of diverse age and distinct\nclothing, and invented the genealogies of gods, their marriages,\nand kinships? When, therefore, these things are found fault with\nas superstitious, he implicates in that fault the ancients who\ninstituted and worshipped such images. Nay, he implicates himself,\nwho, with whatever eloquence he may strive to extricate himself and\nbe free, was yet under the necessity of venerating these images;\nnor dared he so much as whisper in a discourse to the people what\nin this disputation he plainly sounds forth. Let us Christians,\ntherefore, give thanks to the Lord our God,--not to heaven and earth,\nas that author argues, but to Him who has made heaven and earth;\nbecause these superstitions, which that Balbus, like a babbler,[180]\nscarcely reprehends, He, by the most deep lowliness of Christ, by\nthe preaching of the apostles, by the faith of the martyrs dying\nfor the truth and living with the truth, has overthrown, not only\nin the hearts of the religious, but even in the temples of the\nsuperstitious, by their own free service.\n\n\n  31. _Concerning the opinions of Varro, who, while reprobating the\n      popular belief, thought that their worship should be confined\n      to one god, though he was unable to discover the true God._\n\nWhat says Varro himself, whom we grieve to have found, although not\nby his own judgment, placing the scenic plays among things divine?\nWhen in many passages he is exhorting, like a religious man, to the\nworship of the gods, does he not in doing so admit that he does not in\nhis own judgment believe those things which he relates that the Roman\nstate has instituted; so that he does not hesitate to affirm that if he\nwere founding a new state, he could enumerate the gods and their names\nbetter by the rule of nature? But being born into a nation already\nancient, he says that he finds himself bound to accept the traditional\nnames and surnames of the gods, and the histories connected with them,\nand that his purpose in investigating and publishing these details is\nto incline the people to worship the gods, and not to despise them. By\nwhich words this most acute man sufficiently indicates that he does not\npublish all things, because they would not only have been contemptible\nto himself, but would have seemed despicable even to the rabble, unless\nthey had been passed over in silence. I should be thought to conjecture\nthese things, unless he himself, in another passage, had openly said,\nin speaking of religious rites, that many things are true which it\nis not only not useful for the common people to know, but that it is\nexpedient that the people should think otherwise, even though falsely,\nand therefore the Greeks have shut up the religious ceremonies and\nmysteries in silence, and within walls. In this he no doubt expresses\nthe policy of the so-called wise men by whom states and peoples are\nruled. Yet by this crafty device the malign demons are wonderfully\ndelighted, who possess alike the deceivers and the deceived, and from\nwhose tyranny nothing sets free save the grace of God through Jesus\nChrist our Lord.\n\nThe same most acute and learned author also says, that those alone\nseem to him to have perceived what God is, who have believed Him to\nbe the soul of the world, governing it by design and reason.[181]\nAnd by this, it appears, that although he did not attain to the\ntruth,--for the true God is not a soul, but the maker and author\nof the soul,--yet if he could have been free to go against the\nprejudices of custom, he could have confessed and counselled others\nthat the one God ought to be worshipped, who governs the world by\ndesign and reason; so that on this subject only this point would\nremain to be debated with him, that he had called Him a soul, and\nnot rather the creator of the soul. He says, also, that the ancient\nRomans, for more than a hundred and seventy years, worshipped the\ngods without an image.[182] \"And if this custom,\" he says, \"could\nhave remained till now, the gods would have been more purely\nworshipped.\" In favour of this opinion, he cites as a witness among\nothers the Jewish nation; nor does he hesitate to conclude that\npassage by saying of those who first consecrated images for the\npeople, that they have both taken away religious fear from their\nfellow-citizens, and increased error, wisely thinking that the gods\neasily fall into contempt when exhibited under the stolidity of\nimages. But as he does not say they have transmitted error, but that\nthey have increased it, he therefore wishes it to be understood that\nthere was error already when there were no images. Wherefore, when\nhe says they alone have perceived what God is who have believed Him\nto be the governing soul of the world, and thinks that the rites\nof religion would have been more purely observed without images,\nwho fails to see how near he has come to the truth? For if he had\nbeen able to do anything against so inveterate an error, he would\ncertainly have given it as his opinion both that the one God should\nbe worshipped, and that He should be worshipped without an image;\nand having so nearly discovered the truth, perhaps he might easily\nhave been put in mind of the mutability of the soul, and might thus\nhave perceived that the true God is that immutable nature which made\nthe soul itself. Since these things are so, whatever ridicule such\nmen have poured in their writings against the plurality of the gods,\nthey have done so rather as compelled by the secret will of God to\nconfess them, than as trying to persuade others. If, therefore, any\ntestimonies are adduced by us from these writings, they are adduced\nfor the confutation of those who are unwilling to consider from how\ngreat and malignant a power of the demons the singular sacrifice of\nthe shedding of the most holy blood, and the gift of the imparted\nSpirit, can set us free.\n\n\n     32. _In what interest the princes of the nations wished false\n       religions to continue among the people subject to them._\n\nVarro says also, concerning the generations of the gods, that\nthe people have inclined to the poets rather than to the natural\nphilosophers; and that therefore their forefathers,--that is, the\nancient Romans,--believed both in the sex and the generations of the\ngods, and settled their marriages; which certainly seems to have\nbeen done for no other cause except that it was the business of\nsuch men as were prudent and wise to deceive the people in matters\nof religion, and in that very thing not only to worship, but also\nto imitate the demons, whose greatest lust is to deceive. For just\nas the demons cannot possess any but those whom they have deceived\nwith guile, so also men in princely office, not indeed being just,\nbut like demons, have persuaded the people in the name of religion\nto receive as true those things which they themselves knew to be\nfalse; in this way, as it were, binding them up more firmly in civil\nsociety, so that they might in like manner possess them as subjects.\nBut who that was weak and unlearned could escape the deceits of both\nthe princes of the state and the demons?\n\n\n   33. _That the times of all kings and kingdoms are ordained by the\n                 judgment and power of the true God._\n\nTherefore that God, the author and giver of felicity, because He\nalone is the true God, Himself gives earthly kingdoms both to\ngood and bad. Neither does He do this rashly, and, as it were,\nfortuitously,--because He is God, not fortune,--but according to the\norder of things and times, which is hidden from us, but thoroughly\nknown to Himself; which same order of times, however, He does not\nserve as subject to it, but Himself rules as lord and appoints as\ngovernor. Felicity He gives only to the good. Whether a man be a\nsubject or a king makes no difference: he may equally either possess\nor not possess it. And it shall be full in that life where kings and\nsubjects exist no longer. And therefore earthly kingdoms are given by\nHim both to the good and the bad; lest His worshippers, still under\nthe conduct of a very weak mind, should covet these gifts from Him as\nsome great things. And this is the mystery of the Old Testament, in\nwhich the New was hidden, that there even earthly gifts are promised:\nthose who were spiritual understanding even then, although not yet\nopenly declaring, both the eternity which was symbolized by these\nearthly things, and in what gifts of God true felicity could be found.\n\n\n  34. _Concerning the kingdom of the Jews, which was founded by the\n      one and true God, and preserved by Him as long as they remained\n      in the true religion._\n\nTherefore, that it might be known that these earthly good things, after\nwhich those pant who cannot imagine better things, remain in the power\nof the one God Himself, not of the many false gods whom the Romans\nhave formerly believed worthy of worship, He multiplied His people in\nEgypt from being very few, and delivered them out of it by wonderful\nsigns. Nor did their women invoke Lucina when their offspring was being\nincredibly multiplied; and that nation having increased incredibly,\nHe Himself delivered, He Himself saved them from the hands of the\nEgyptians, who persecuted them, and wished to kill all their infants.\nWithout the goddess Rumina they sucked; without Cunina they were\ncradled; without Educa and Potina they took food and drink; without\nall those puerile gods they were educated; without the nuptial gods\nthey were married; without the worship of Priapus they had conjugal\nintercourse; without invocation of Neptune the divided sea opened up\na way for them to pass over, and overwhelmed with its returning waves\ntheir enemies who pursued them. Neither did they consecrate any goddess\nMannia when they received manna from heaven; nor, when the smitten rock\npoured forth water to them when they thirsted, did they worship Nymphs\nand Lymphs. Without the mad rites of Mars and Bellona they carried\non war; and while, indeed, they did not conquer without victory, yet\nthey did not hold it to be a goddess, but the gift of their God.\nWithout Segetia they had harvests; without Bubona, oxen; honey without\nMellona; apples without Pomona: and, in a word, everything for which\nthe Romans thought they must supplicate so great a crowd of false\ngods, they received much more happily from the one true God. And if\nthey had not sinned against Him with impious curiosity, which seduced\nthem like magic arts, and drew them to strange gods and idols, and at\nlast led them to kill Christ, their kingdom would have remained to\nthem, and would have been, if not more spacious, yet more happy, than\nthat of Rome. And now that they are dispersed through almost all lands\nand nations, it is through the providence of that one true God; that\nwhereas the images, altars, groves, and temples of the false gods are\neverywhere overthrown, and their sacrifices prohibited, it may be shown\nfrom their books how this has been foretold by their prophets so long\nbefore; lest, perhaps, when they should be read in ours, they might\nseem to be invented by us. But now, reserving what is to follow for the\nfollowing book, we must here set a bound to the prolixity of this one.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[155] In Augustine's letter to Evodius (169), which was written\ntowards the end of the year 415, he mentions that this fourth book\nand the following one were begun and finished during that same year.\n\n[156] Comp. Bacon's _Essay on the Vicissitudes of Things_.\n\n[157] Matt. v. 45.\n\n[158] 2 Pet. ii. 19.\n\n[159] Nonius Marcell. borrows this anecdote from Cicero, _De Repub._\niii.\n\n[160] It was extinguished by Crassus in its third year.\n\n[161] Cloacina, supposed by Lactantius (_De falsa relig._ i. 20),\nCyprian (_De Idol. vanit._), and Augustine (_infra._, c. 23) to be\nthe goddess of the \"cloaca,\" or sewage of Rome. Others, however,\nsuppose it to be equivalent to Cluacina, a title given to Venus,\nbecause the Romans after the end of the Sabine war purified\nthemselves (_cluere_) in the vicinity of her statue.\n\n[162] Forculum foribus, Cardeam cardini, Limentinum limini.\n\n[163] Virgil, _Eclog._ iii. 60.\n\n[164] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, i. 47.\n\n[165] Cicero, _De Nat. Deor._ ii. 25.\n\n[166] Virgil, _Georg._ ii. 325, 326.\n\n[167] Eusebius, _De Pr\u00e6p. Evang._ i. 10.\n\n[168] Virgil, _Georg._ iv. 221, 222.\n\n[169] The feminine Fortune.\n\n[170] Hab. ii. 4.\n\n[171] So called from the consent or harmony of the celestial\nmovements of these gods.\n\n[172] _Tusc. Qu\u00e6st._ i. 26.\n\n[173] Livy, ii. 36; Cicero, _De Divin._ 26.\n\n[174] Called by Cicero (_De Oratore_, i. 39) the most eloquent of\nlawyers, and the best skilled lawyer among eloquent men.\n\n[175] Superflua non nocent.\n\n[176] Rom. i. 25.\n\n[177] _De Divin._ ii. 37.\n\n[178] Cic. _De Nat. Deorum_, lib. ii. c. 28.\n\n[179] Superstition, from _superstes_. Against this etymology of\nCicero, see Lact. _Inst. Div._ iv. 28.\n\n[180] Balbus, from _balbutiens_, stammering, babbling.\n\n[181] See Cicero, _De Nat. Deor._ i. 2.\n\n[182] Plutarch's _Numa_, c. 8.\n\n\n\n\n                            BOOK FIFTH.[183]\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  AUGUSTINE FIRST DISCUSSES THE DOCTRINE OF FATE, FOR THE SAKE OF\n      CONFUTING THOSE WHO ARE DISPOSED TO REFER TO FATE THE POWER AND\n      INCREASE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, WHICH COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED\n      TO FALSE GODS, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING BOOK. AFTER\n      THAT, HE PROVES THAT THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN GOD'S\n      PRESCIENCE AND OUR FREE WILL. HE THEN SPEAKS OF THE MANNERS OF\n      THE ANCIENT ROMANS, AND SHOWS IN WHAT SENSE IT WAS DUE TO THE\n      VIRTUE OF THE ROMANS THEMSELVES, AND IN HOW FAR TO THE COUNSEL\n      OF GOD, THAT HE INCREASED THEIR DOMINION, THOUGH THEY DID NOT\n      WORSHIP HIM. FINALLY, HE EXPLAINS WHAT IS TO BE ACCOUNTED THE\n      TRUE HAPPINESS OF THE CHRISTIAN EMPERORS.\n\n\n                               PREFACE.\n\nSince, then, it is established that the complete attainment of all we\ndesire is that which constitutes felicity, which is no goddess, but a\ngift of God, and that therefore men can worship no god save Him who\nis able to make them happy,--and were Felicity herself a goddess, she\nwould with reason be the only object of worship,--since, I say, this\nis established, let us now go on to consider why God, who is able to\ngive with all other things those good gifts which can be possessed\nby men who are not good, and consequently not happy, has seen fit to\ngrant such extended and long-continued dominion to the Roman empire;\nfor that this was not effected by that multitude of false gods which\nthey worshipped, we have both already adduced, and shall, as occasion\noffers, yet adduce considerable proof.\n\n\n    1. _That the cause of the Roman empire, and of all kingdoms, is\n   neither fortuitous nor consists in the position of the stars._[184]\n\nThe cause, then, of the greatness of the Roman empire is neither\nfortuitous nor fatal, according to the judgment or opinion of those\nwho call those things _fortuitous_ which either have no causes, or\nsuch causes as do not proceed from some intelligible order, and those\nthings _fatal_ which happen independently of the will of God and man,\nby the necessity of a certain _order_. In a word, human kingdoms are\nestablished by divine providence. And if any one attributes their\nexistence to fate, because he calls the will or the power of God\nitself by the name of fate, let him keep his opinion, but correct his\nlanguage. For why does he not say at first what he will say afterwards,\nwhen some one shall put the question to him, What he means by _fate_?\nFor when men hear that word, according to the ordinary use of the\nlanguage, they simply understand by it the virtue of that particular\nposition of the stars which may exist at the time when any one is born\nor conceived, which some separate altogether from the will of God,\nwhilst others affirm that this also is dependent on that will. But\nthose who are of opinion that, apart from the will of God, the stars\ndetermine what we shall do, or what good things we shall possess, or\nwhat evils we shall suffer, must be refused a hearing by all, not\nonly by those who hold the true religion, but by those who wish to\nbe the worshippers of any gods whatsoever, even false gods. For what\ndoes this opinion really amount to but this, that no god whatever is\nto be worshipped or prayed to? Against these, however, our present\ndisputation is not intended to be directed, but against those who,\nin defence of those whom they think to be gods, oppose the Christian\nreligion. They, however, who make the position of the stars depend on\nthe divine will, and in a manner decree what character each man shall\nhave, and what good or evil shall happen to him, if they think that\nthese same stars have that power conferred upon them by the supreme\npower of God, in order that they may determine these things according\nto their will, do a great injury to the celestial sphere, in whose most\nbrilliant senate, and most splendid senate-house, as it were, they\nsuppose that wicked deeds are decreed to be done,--such deeds as that\nif any terrestrial state should decree them, it would be condemned\nto overthrow by the decree of the whole human race. What judgment,\nthen, is left to God concerning the deeds of men, who is Lord both of\nthe stars and of men, when to these deeds a celestial necessity is\nattributed? Or, if they do not say that the stars, though they have\nindeed received a certain power from God, who is supreme, determine\nthose things according to their own discretion, but simply that His\ncommands are fulfilled by them instrumentally in the application and\nenforcing of such necessities, are we thus to think concerning God even\nwhat it seemed unworthy that we should think concerning the will of\nthe stars? But, if the stars are said rather to signify these things\nthan to effect them, so that that _position of the stars_ is, as it\nwere, a kind of speech predicting, not causing future things,--for\nthis has been the opinion of men of no ordinary learning,--certainly\nthe mathematicians are not wont so to speak, saying, for example,\nMars in such or such a position _signifies_ a homicide, but _makes_ a\nhomicide. But, nevertheless, though we grant that they do not speak as\nthey ought, and that we ought to accept as the proper form of speech\nthat employed by the philosophers in predicting those things which\nthey think they discover in the position of the stars, how comes it\nthat they have never been able to assign any cause why, in the life\nof twins, in their actions, in the events which befall them, in their\nprofessions, arts, honours, and other things pertaining to human life,\nalso in their very death, there is often so great a difference, that,\nas far as these things are concerned, many entire strangers are more\nlike them than they are like each other, though separated at birth by\nthe smallest interval of time, but at conception generated by the same\nact of copulation, and at the same moment?\n\n\n            2. _On the difference in the health of twins._\n\nCicero says that the famous physician Hippocrates has left in writing\nthat he had suspected that a certain pair of brothers were twins,\nfrom the fact that they both took ill at once, and their disease\nadvanced to its crisis and subsided in the same time in each of\nthem.[185] Posidonius the Stoic, who was much given to astrology,\nused to explain the fact by supposing that they had been born\nand conceived under the same constellation. In this question the\nconjecture of the physician is by far more worthy to be accepted,\nand approaches much nearer to credibility, since, according as the\nparents were affected in body at the time of copulation, so might the\nfirst elements of the f\u0153tuses have been affected, so that all that\nwas necessary for their growth and development up till birth having\nbeen supplied from the body of the same mother, they might be born\nwith like constitutions. Thereafter, nourished in the same house, on\nthe same kinds of food, where they would have also the same kinds of\nair, the same locality, the same quality of water,--which, according\nto the testimony of medical science, have a very great influence,\ngood or bad, on the condition of bodily health,--and where they\nwould also be accustomed to the same kinds of exercise, they would\nhave bodily constitutions so similar that they would be similarly\naffected with sickness at the same time and by the same causes. But,\nto wish to adduce that particular position of the stars which existed\nat the time when they were born or conceived as the cause of their\nbeing simultaneously affected with sickness, manifests the greatest\narrogance, when so many beings of most diverse kinds, in the most\ndiverse conditions, and subject to the most diverse events, may have\nbeen conceived and born at the same time, and in the same district,\nlying under the same sky. But we know that twins do not only act\ndifferently, and travel to very different places, but that they\nalso suffer from different kinds of sickness; for which Hippocrates\nwould give what is in my opinion the simplest reason, namely, that,\nthrough diversity of food and exercise, which arises not from the\nconstitution of the body, but from the inclination of the mind, they\nmay have come to be different from each other in respect of health.\nMoreover, Posidonius, or any other asserter of the fatal influence of\nthe stars, will have enough to do to find anything to say to this,\nif he be unwilling to impose upon the minds of the uninstructed in\nthings of which they are ignorant. But, as to what they attempt to\nmake out from that very small interval of time elapsing between\nthe births of twins, on account of that point in the heavens where\nthe mark of the natal hour is placed, and which they call the\n\"horoscope,\" it is either disproportionately small to the diversity\nwhich is found in the dispositions, actions, habits, and fortunes\nof twins, or it is disproportionately great when compared with the\nestate of twins, whether low or high, which is the same for both of\nthem, the cause for whose greatest difference they place, in every\ncase, in the hour on which one is born; and, for this reason, if the\none is born so immediately after the other that there is no change\nin the horoscope, I demand an entire similarity in all that respects\nthem both, which can never be found in the case of any twins. But if\nthe slowness of the birth of the second give time for a change in the\nhoroscope, I demand different parents, which twins can never have.\n\n\n  3. _Concerning the arguments which Nigidius the mathematician drew\n      from the potter's wheel, in the question about the birth of\n      twins._\n\nIt is to no purpose, therefore, that that famous fiction about the\npotter's wheel is brought forward, which tells of the answer which\nNigidius is said to have given when he was perplexed with this\nquestion, and on account of which he was called _Figulus_.[186] For,\nhaving whirled round the potter's wheel with all his strength, he\nmarked it with ink, striking it twice with the utmost rapidity, so\nthat the strokes seemed to fall on the very same part of it. Then,\nwhen the rotation had ceased, the marks which he had made were found\nupon the rim of the wheel at no small distance apart. Thus, said\nhe, considering the great rapidity with which the celestial sphere\nrevolves, even though twins were born with as short an interval\nbetween their births as there was between the strokes which I gave\nthis wheel, that brief interval of time is equivalent to a very great\ndistance in the celestial sphere. Hence, said he, come whatever\ndissimilitudes may be remarked in the habits and fortunes of twins.\nThis argument is more fragile than the vessels which are fashioned\nby the rotation of that wheel. For if there is so much significance\nin the heavens which cannot be comprehended by observation of the\nconstellations, that, in the case of twins, an inheritance may fall\nto the one and not to the other, why, in the case of others who\nare not twins, do they dare, having examined their constellations,\nto declare such things as pertain to that secret which no one can\ncomprehend, and to attribute them to the precise moment of the birth\nof each individual? Now, if such predictions in connection with the\nnatal hours of others who are not twins are to be vindicated on the\nground that they are founded on the observation of more extended\nspaces in the heavens, whilst those very small moments of time which\nseparated the births of twins, and correspond to minute portions\nof celestial space, are to be connected with trifling things about\nwhich the mathematicians are not wont to be consulted,--for who would\nconsult them as to when he is to sit, when to walk abroad, when and\non what he is to dine?--how can we be justified in so speaking, when\nwe can point out such manifold diversity both in the habits, doings,\nand destinies of twins?\n\n\n  4. _Concerning the twins Esau and Jacob, who were very unlike each\n              other both in their character and actions._\n\nIn the time of the ancient fathers, to speak concerning illustrious\npersons, there were born two twin brothers, the one so immediately\nafter the other, that the first took hold of the heel of the second.\nSo great a difference existed in their lives and manners, so great a\ndissimilarity in their actions, so great a difference in their parents'\nlove for them respectively, that the very contrast between them\nproduced even a mutual hostile antipathy. Do we mean, when we say that\nthey were so unlike each other, that when the one was walking the other\nwas sitting, when the one was sleeping the other was waking,--which\ndifferences are such as are attributed to those minute portions of\nspace which cannot be appreciated by those who note down the position\nof the stars which exists at the moment of one's birth, in order that\nthe mathematicians may be consulted concerning it? One of these twins\nwas for a long time a hired servant; the other never served. One of\nthem was beloved by his mother; the other was not so. One of them lost\nthat honour which was so much valued among their people; the other\nobtained it. And what shall we say of their wives, their children, and\ntheir possessions? How different they were in respect to all these!\nIf, therefore, such things as these are connected with those minute\nintervals of time which elapse between the births of twins, and are not\nto be attributed to the constellations, wherefore are they predicted in\nthe case of others from the examination of their constellations? And\nif, on the other hand, these things are said to be predicted, because\nthey are connected, not with minute and inappreciable moments, but with\nintervals of time which can be observed and noted down, what purpose\nis that potter's wheel to serve in this matter, except it be to whirl\nround men who have hearts of clay, in order that they may be prevented\nfrom detecting the emptiness of the talk of the mathematicians?\n\n\n   5. _In what manner the mathematicians are convicted of professing\n                           a vain science._\n\nDo not those very persons whom the medical sagacity of Hippocrates\nled him to suspect to be twins, because their disease was observed\nby him to develope to its crisis and to subside again in the same\ntime in each of them,--do not these, I say, serve as a sufficient\nrefutation of those who wish to attribute to the influence of the\nstars that which was owing to a similarity of bodily constitution?\nFor wherefore were they both sick of the same disease, and at the\nsame time, and not the one after the other in the order of their\nbirth? (for certainly they could not both be born at the same time.)\nOr, if the fact of their having been born at different times by\nno means necessarily implies that they must be sick at different\ntimes, why do they contend that the difference in the time of their\nbirths was the cause of their difference in other things? Why could\nthey travel in foreign parts at different times, marry at different\ntimes, beget children at different times, and do many other things\nat different times, by reason of their having been born at different\ntimes, and yet could not, for the same reason, also be sick at\ndifferent times? For if a difference in the moment of birth changed\nthe horoscope, and occasioned dissimilarity in all other things, why\nhas that simultaneousness which belonged to their conception remained\nin their attacks of sickness? Or, if the destinies of health are\ninvolved in the time of conception, but those of other things be\nsaid to be attached to the time of birth, they ought not to predict\nanything concerning health from examination of the constellations\nof birth, when the hour of conception is not also given, that its\nconstellations may be inspected. But if they say that they predict\nattacks of sickness without examining the horoscope of conception,\nbecause these are indicated by the moments of birth, how could\nthey inform either of these twins when he would be sick, from the\nhoroscope of his birth, when the other also, who had not the same\nhoroscope of birth, must of necessity fall sick at the same time?\nAgain, I ask, if the distance of time between the births of twins\nis so great as to occasion a difference of their constellations on\naccount of the difference of their horoscopes, and therefore of\nall the cardinal points to which so much influence is attributed,\nthat even from such change there comes a difference of destiny,\nhow is it possible that this should be so, since they cannot have\nbeen conceived at different times? Or, if two conceived at the same\nmoment of time could have different destinies with respect to their\nbirths, why may not also two born at the same moment of time have\ndifferent destinies for life and for death? For if the one moment\nin which both were conceived did not hinder that the one should be\nborn before the other, why, if two are born at the same moment,\nshould anything hinder them from dying at the same moment? If a\nsimultaneous conception allows of twins being differently affected\nin the _womb_, why should not simultaneousness of birth allow of any\ntwo individuals having different fortunes in the _world_? and thus\nwould all the fictions of this art, or rather delusion, be swept\naway. What strange circumstance is this, that two children conceived\nat the same time, nay, at the same moment, under the same position of\nthe stars, have different fates which bring them to different hours\nof birth, whilst two children, born of two different mothers, at the\nsame moment of time, under one and the same position of the stars,\ncannot have different fates which shall conduct them by necessity\nto diverse manners of life and of death? Are they at conception as\nyet without destinies, because they can only have them if they be\nborn? What, therefore, do they mean when they say that, if the hour\nof the conception be found, many things can be predicted by these\nastrologers? from which also arose that story which is reiterated\nby some, that a certain sage chose an hour in which to lie with his\nwife, in order to secure his begetting an illustrious son. From this\nopinion also came that answer of Posidonius, the great astrologer\nand also philosopher, concerning those twins who were attacked with\nsickness at the same time, namely, \"That this had happened to them\nbecause they were conceived at the same time, and born at the same\ntime.\" For certainly he added \"conception,\" lest it should be said\nto him that they could not both be _born_ at the same time, knowing\nthat at any rate they must both have been conceived at the same time;\nwishing thus to show that he did not attribute the fact of their\nbeing similarly and simultaneously affected with sickness to the\nsimilarity of their bodily constitutions as its proximate cause, but\nthat he held that even in respect of the similarity of their health,\nthey were bound together by a sidereal connection. If, therefore,\nthe time of conception has so much to do with the similarity of\ndestinies, these same destinies ought not to be changed by the\ncircumstances of birth; or, if the destinies of twins be said to be\nchanged because they are born at different times, why should we not\nrather understand that they had been already changed in order that\nthey might be born at different times? Does not, then, the will of\nmen living in the world change the destinies of birth, when the order\nof birth can change the destinies they had at conception?\n\n\n               6. _Concerning twins of different sexes._\n\nBut even in the very conception of twins, which certainly occurs at\nthe same moment in the case of both, it often happens that the one is\nconceived a male, and the other a female. I know two of different sexes\nwho are twins. Both of them are alive, and in the flower of their age;\nand though they resemble each other in body, as far as difference of\nsex will permit, still they are very different in the whole scope and\npurpose of their lives (consideration being had of those differences\nwhich necessarily exist between the lives of males and females),--the\none holding the office of a count, and being almost constantly away\nfrom home with the army in foreign service, the other never leaving\nher country's soil, or her native district. Still more,--and this is\nmore incredible, if the destinies of the stars are to be believed in,\nthough it is not wonderful if we consider the wills of men, and the\nfree gifts of God,--he is married; she is a sacred virgin: he has\nbegotten a numerous offspring; she has never even married. But is not\nthe virtue of the horoscope very great? I think I have said enough\nto show the absurdity of that. But, say those astrologers, whatever\nbe the virtue of the horoscope in other respects, it is certainly of\nsignificance with respect to birth. But why not also with respect to\nconception, which takes place undoubtedly with one act of copulation?\nAnd, indeed, so great is the force of nature, that after a woman has\nonce conceived, she ceases to be liable to conception. Or were they,\nperhaps, changed at birth, either he into a male, or she into a female,\nbecause of the difference in their horoscopes? But, whilst it is not\naltogether absurd to say that certain sidereal influences have some\npower to cause differences in bodies alone,--as, for instance, we see\nthat the seasons of the year come round by the approaching and receding\nof the sun, and that certain kinds of things are increased in size or\ndiminished by the waxings and wanings of the moon, such as sea-urchins,\noysters, and the wonderful tides of the ocean,--it does not follow that\nthe _wills of men_ are to be made subject to the position of the stars.\nThe astrologers, however, when they wish to bind our actions also to\nthe constellations, only set us on investigating whether, even in\nthese bodies, the changes may not be attributable to some other than a\nsidereal cause. For what is there which more intimately concerns a body\nthan its sex? And yet, under the same position of the stars, twins of\ndifferent sexes may be conceived. Wherefore, what greater absurdity can\nbe affirmed or believed than that the position of the stars, which was\nthe same for both of them at the time of conception, could not cause\nthat the one child should not have been of a different sex from her\nbrother, with whom she had a common constellation, whilst the position\nof the stars which existed at the hour of their birth could cause that\nshe should be separated from him by the great distance between marriage\nand holy virginity?\n\n\n  7. _Concerning the choosing of a day for marriage, or for planting,\n                              or sowing._\n\nNow, will any one bring forward this, that in choosing certain\nparticular days for particular actions, men bring about certain new\ndestinies for their actions? That man, for instance, according to\nthis doctrine, was not born to have an illustrious son, but rather a\ncontemptible one, and therefore, being a man of learning, he chose an\nhour in which to lie with his wife. He made, therefore, a destiny\nwhich he did not have before, and from that destiny of his own making\nsomething began to be fatal which was not contained in the destiny of\nhis natal hour. Oh, singular stupidity! A day is chosen on which to\nmarry; and for this reason, I believe, that unless a day be chosen,\nthe marriage may fall on an unlucky day, and turn out an unhappy\none. What then becomes of what the stars have already decreed at\nthe hour of birth? Can a man be said to change by an act of choice\nthat which has already been determined for him, whilst that which he\nhimself has determined in the choosing of a day cannot be changed by\nanother power? Thus, if men alone, and not all things under heaven,\nare subject to the influence of the stars, why do they choose some\ndays as suitable for planting vines or trees, or for sowing grain,\nother days as suitable for taming beasts on, or for putting the\nmales to the females, that the cows and mares may be impregnated,\nand for such-like things? If it be said that certain chosen days\nhave an influence on these things, because the constellations rule\nover all terrestrial bodies, animate and inanimate, according to\ndifferences in moments of time, let it be considered what innumerable\nmultitudes of beings are born or arise, or take their origin at the\nvery same instant of time, which come to ends so different, that\nthey may persuade any little boy that these observations about days\nare ridiculous. For who is so mad as to dare affirm that all trees,\nall herbs, all beasts, serpents, birds, fishes, worms, have each\nseparately their own moments of birth or commencement? Nevertheless,\nmen are wont, in order to try the skill of the mathematicians,\nto bring before them the constellations of dumb animals, the\nconstellations of whose birth they diligently observe at home with\na view to this discovery; and they prefer those mathematicians to\nall others, who say from the inspection of the constellations that\nthey indicate the birth of a beast and not of a man. They also dare\ntell what kind of beast it is, whether it is a wool-bearing beast,\nor a beast suited for carrying burthens, or one fit for the plough,\nor for watching a house; for the astrologers are also tried with\nrespect to the fates of dogs, and their answers concerning these are\nfollowed by shouts of admiration on the part of those who consult\nthem. They so deceive men as to make them think that during the birth\nof a man the births of all other beings are suspended, so that not\neven a fly comes to life at the same time that he is being born,\nunder the same region of the heavens. And if this be admitted with\nrespect to the fly, the reasoning cannot stop there, but must ascend\nfrom flies till it lead them up to camels and elephants. Nor are they\nwilling to attend to this, that when a day has been chosen whereon\nto sow a field, so many grains fall into the ground simultaneously,\ngerminate simultaneously, spring up, come to perfection, and ripen\nsimultaneously; and yet, of all the ears which are coeval, and, so to\nspeak, _congerminal_, some are destroyed by mildew, some are devoured\nby the birds, and some are pulled by men. How can they say that all\nthese had their different constellations, which they see coming to so\ndifferent ends? Will they confess that it is folly to choose days for\nsuch things, and to affirm that they do not come within the sphere of\nthe celestial decree, whilst they subject men alone to the stars, on\nwhom alone in the world God has bestowed free wills? All these things\nbeing considered, we have good reason to believe that, when the\nastrologers give very many wonderful answers, it is to be attributed\nto the occult inspiration of spirits not of the best kind, whose care\nit is to insinuate into the minds of men, and to confirm in them,\nthose false and noxious opinions concerning the fatal influence of\nthe stars, and not to their marking and inspecting of horoscopes,\naccording to some kind of art which in reality has no existence.\n\n\n  8. _Concerning those who call by the name of fate, not the\n      position of the stars, but the connection of causes which\n      depends on the will of God._\n\nBut, as to those who call by the name of fate, not the disposition of\nthe stars as it may exist when any creature is conceived, or born,\nor commences its existence, but the whole connection and train of\ncauses which makes everything become what it does become, there is\nno need that I should labour and strive with them in a merely verbal\ncontroversy, since they attribute the so-called order and connection\nof causes to the will and power of God most high, who is most rightly\nand most truly believed to know all things before they come to pass,\nand to leave nothing unordained; from whom are all powers, although\nthe wills of all are not from Him. Now, that it is chiefly the will\nof God most high, whose power extends itself irresistibly through all\nthings which they call fate, is proved by the following verses, of\nwhich, if I mistake not, Ann\u00e6us Seneca is the author:--\n\n          \"Father supreme, Thou ruler of the lofty heavens,\n           Lead me where'er it is Thy pleasure; I will give\n           A prompt obedience, making no delay,\n           Lo! here I am. Promptly I come to do Thy sovereign will;\n           If Thy command shall thwart my inclination, I will still\n           Follow Thee groaning, and the work assigned,\n           With all the suffering of a mind repugnant,\n           Will perform, being evil; which, had I been good,\n           I should have undertaken and performed, though hard,\n           With virtuous cheerfulness.\n           The Fates do lead the man that follows willing;\n           But the man that is unwilling, him they drag.\"[187]\n\nMost evidently, in this last verse, he calls that \"fate\" which he had\nbefore called \"the will of the Father supreme,\" whom, he says, he is\nready to obey that he may be led, being willing, not dragged, being\nunwilling, since \"the Fates do lead the man that follows willing, but\nthe man that is unwilling, him they drag.\"\n\nThe following Homeric lines, which Cicero translates into Latin, also\nfavour this opinion:--\n\n          \"Such are the minds of men, as is the light\n           Which Father Jove himself doth pour\n           Illustrious o'er the fruitful earth.\"[188]\n\nNot that Cicero wishes that a poetical sentiment should have any\nweight in a question like this; for when he says that the Stoics, when\nasserting the power of fate, were in the habit of using these verses\nfrom Homer, he is not treating concerning the opinion of that poet, but\nconcerning that of those philosophers, since by these verses, which\nthey quote in connection with the controversy which they hold about\nfate, is most distinctly manifested what it is which they reckon fate,\nsince they call by the name of Jupiter him whom they reckon the supreme\ngod, from whom, they say, hangs the whole chain of fates.\n\n\n   9. _Concerning the foreknowledge of God and the free will of man,\n              in opposition to the definition of Cicero._\n\nThe manner in which Cicero addresses himself to the task of\nrefuting the Stoics, shows that he did not think he could effect\nanything against them in argument unless he had first demolished\ndivination.[189] And this he attempts to accomplish by denying that\nthere is any knowledge of future things, and maintains with all\nhis might that there is no such knowledge either in God or man,\nand that there is no prediction of events. Thus he both denies the\nforeknowledge of God, and attempts by vain arguments, and by opposing\nto himself certain oracles very easy to be refuted, to overthrow all\nprophecy, even such as is clearer than the light (though even these\noracles are not refuted by him).\n\nBut, in refuting these conjectures of the mathematicians, his\nargument is triumphant, because truly these are such as destroy\nand refute themselves. Nevertheless, they are far more tolerable\nwho assert the fatal influence of the stars than they who deny the\nforeknowledge of future events. For, to confess that God exists,\nand at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future\nthings, is the most manifest folly. This Cicero himself saw, and\ntherefore attempted to assert the doctrine embodied in the words of\nScripture, \"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.\"[190]\nThat, however, he did not do in his own person, for he saw how odious\nand offensive such an opinion would be; and, therefore in his book\non the nature of the gods,[191] he makes Cotta dispute concerning\nthis against the Stoics, and preferred to give his own opinion in\nfavour of Lucilius Balbus, to whom he assigned the defence of the\nStoical position, rather than in favour of Cotta, who maintained\nthat no divinity exists. However, in his book on divination, he in\nhis own person most openly opposes the doctrine of the prescience of\nfuture things. But all this he seems to do in order that he may not\ngrant the doctrine of fate, and by so doing destroy free will. For he\nthinks that, the knowledge of future things being once conceded, fate\nfollows as so necessary a consequence that it cannot be denied.\n\nBut, let these perplexing debatings and disputations of the\nphilosophers go on as they may, we, in order that we may confess the\nmost high and true God Himself, do confess His will, supreme power,\nand prescience. Neither let us be afraid lest, after all, we do not\ndo by will that which we do by will, because He, whose foreknowledge\nis infallible, foreknew that we would do it. It was this which Cicero\nwas afraid of, and therefore opposed foreknowledge. The Stoics also\nmaintained that all things do not come to pass by necessity, although\nthey contended that all things happen according to destiny. What is it,\nthen, that Cicero feared in the prescience of future things? Doubtless\nit was this,--that if all future things have been foreknown, they will\nhappen in the order in which they have been foreknown; and if they come\nto pass in this order, there is a certain order of things foreknown\nby God; and if a certain order of things, then a certain order of\ncauses, for nothing can happen which is not preceded by some efficient\ncause. But if there is a certain order of causes according to which\neverything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things\nhappen which do happen. But if this be so, then is there nothing in\nour own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if\nwe grant that, says he, the whole economy of human life is subverted.\nIn vain are laws enacted. In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings,\nexhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whatever in the\nappointment of rewards for the good, and punishments for the wicked.\nAnd that consequences so disgraceful, and absurd, and pernicious to\nhumanity may not follow, Cicero chooses to reject the foreknowledge of\nfuture things, and shuts up the religious mind to this alternative, to\nmake choice between two things, either that something is in our own\npower, or that there is foreknowledge,--both of which cannot be true;\nbut if the one is affirmed, the other is thereby denied. He therefore,\nlike a truly great and wise man, and one who consulted very much and\nvery skilfully for the good of humanity, of those two chose the freedom\nof the will, to confirm which he denied the foreknowledge of future\nthings; and thus, wishing to make men free, he makes them sacrilegious.\nBut the religious mind chooses both, confesses both, and maintains both\nby the faith of piety. But how so? says Cicero; for the knowledge of\nfuture things being granted, there follows a chain of consequences\nwhich ends in this, that there can be nothing depending on our own free\nwills. And further, if there is anything depending on our wills, we\nmust go backwards by the same steps of reasoning till we arrive at the\nconclusion that there is no foreknowledge of future things. For we go\nbackwards through all the steps in the following order:--If there is\nfree will, all things do not happen according to fate; if all things do\nnot happen according to fate, there is not a certain order of causes;\nand if there is not a certain order of causes, neither is there a\ncertain order of things foreknown by God,--for things cannot come to\npass except they are preceded by efficient causes,--but, if there is no\nfixed and certain order of causes foreknown by God, all things cannot\nbe said to happen according as He foreknew that they would happen. And\nfurther, if it is not true that all things happen just as they have\nbeen foreknown by Him, there is not, says he, in God any foreknowledge\nof future events.\n\nNow, against the sacrilegious and impious darings of reason, we\nassert both that God knows all things before they come to pass, and\nthat we do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done\nby us only because we will it. But that all things come to pass by\nfate, we do not say; nay we affirm that nothing comes to pass by\nfate; for we demonstrate that the name of fate, as it is wont to\nbe used by those who speak of fate, meaning thereby the position\nof the stars at the time of each one's conception or birth, is an\nunmeaning word, for astrology itself is a delusion. But an order of\ncauses in which the highest efficiency is attributed to the will of\nGod, we neither deny nor do we designate it by the name of fate,\nunless, perhaps, we may understand fate to mean that which is spoken,\nderiving it from _fari_, to speak; for we cannot deny that it is\nwritten in the sacred Scriptures, \"God hath spoken once; these two\nthings have I heard, that power belongeth unto God. Also unto Thee, O\nGod, belongeth mercy: for Thou wilt render unto every man according\nto his works.\"[192] Now the expression, \"Once hath He spoken,\" is to\nbe understood as meaning \"_immovably_,\" that is, unchangeably hath\nHe spoken, inasmuch as He knows unchangeably all things which shall\nbe, and all things which He will do. We might, then, use the word\nfate in the sense it bears when derived from _fari_, to speak, had\nit not already come to be understood in another sense, into which I\nam unwilling that the hearts of men should unconsciously slide. But\nit does not follow that, though there is for God a certain order of\nall causes, there must therefore be nothing depending on the free\nexercise of our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in\nthat order of causes which is certain to God, and is embraced by His\nforeknowledge, for human wills are also causes of human actions;\nand He who foreknew all the causes of things would certainly among\nthose causes not have been ignorant of our wills. For even that very\nconcession which Cicero himself makes is enough to refute him in\nthis argument. For what does it help him to say that nothing takes\nplace without a cause, but that every cause is not fatal, there being\na fortuitous cause, a natural cause, and a voluntary cause? It is\nsufficient that he confesses that whatever happens must be preceded\nby a cause. For we say that those causes which are called fortuitous\nare not a mere name for the absence of causes, but are only latent,\nand we attribute them either to the will of the true God, or to that\nof spirits of some kind or other. And as to natural causes, we by no\nmeans separate them from the will of Him who is the author and framer\nof all nature. But now as to voluntary causes. They are referable\neither to God, or to angels, or to men, or to animals of whatever\ndescription, if indeed those instinctive movements of animals devoid\nof reason, by which, in accordance with their own nature, they seek\nor shun various things, are to be called wills. And when I speak of\nthe wills of angels, I mean either the wills of good angels, whom we\ncall the angels of God, or of the wicked angels, whom we call the\nangels of the devil, or demons. Also by the wills of men I mean the\nwills either of the good or of the wicked. And from this we conclude\nthat there are no efficient causes of all things which come to pass\nunless voluntary causes, that is, such as belong to that nature which\nis the spirit of life. For the air or wind is called spirit, but,\ninasmuch as it is a body, it is not the spirit of life. The spirit\nof life, therefore, which quickens all things, and is the creator\nof every body, and of every created spirit, is God Himself, the\nuncreated spirit. In His supreme will resides the power which acts\non the wills of all created spirits, helping the good, judging the\nevil, controlling all, granting power to some, not granting it to\nothers. For, as He is the creator of all natures, so also is He the\nbestower of all powers, not of all wills; for wicked wills are not\nfrom Him, being contrary to nature, which is from Him. As to bodies,\nthey are more subject to wills: some to our wills, by which I mean\nthe wills of all living mortal creatures, but more to the wills of\nmen than of beasts. But all of them are most of all subject to the\nwill of God, to whom all wills also are subject, since they have no\npower except what He has bestowed upon them. The cause of things,\ntherefore, which makes but is not made, is God; but all other causes\nboth make and are made. Such are all created spirits, and especially\nthe rational. Material causes, therefore, which may rather be said to\nbe made than to make, are not to be reckoned among efficient causes,\nbecause they can only do what the wills of spirits do by them. How,\nthen, does an order of causes which is certain to the foreknowledge\nof God necessitate that there should be nothing which is dependent\non our wills, when our wills themselves have a very important place\nin the order of causes? Cicero, then, contends with those who call\nthis order of causes fatal, or rather designate this order itself\nby the name of fate; to which we have an abhorrence, especially on\naccount of the word, which men have become accustomed to understand\nas meaning what is not true. But, whereas he denies that the order\nof all causes is most certain, and perfectly clear to the prescience\nof God, we detest his opinion more than the Stoics do. For he either\ndenies that God exists,--which, indeed, in an assumed personage,\nhe has laboured to do, in his book _De Natura Deorum_,--or if he\nconfesses that He exists, but denies that He is prescient of future\nthings, what is that but just \"the fool saying in his heart there is\nno God?\" For one who is not prescient of all future things is not\nGod. Wherefore our wills also have just so much power as God willed\nand foreknew that they should have; and therefore whatever power\nthey have, they have it within most certain limits; and whatever they\nare to do, they are most assuredly to do, for He whose foreknowledge\nis infallible foreknew that they would have the power to do it, and\nwould do it. Wherefore, if I should choose to apply the name of fate\nto anything at all, I should rather say that fate belongs to the\nweaker of two parties, will to the stronger, who has the other in his\npower, than that the freedom of our will is excluded by that order\nof causes, which, by an unusual application of the word peculiar to\nthemselves, the Stoics call _Fate_.\n\n\n            10. _Whether our wills are ruled by necessity._\n\nWherefore, neither is that necessity to be feared, for dread of which\nthe Stoics laboured to make such distinctions among the causes of\nthings as should enable them to rescue certain things from the dominion\nof necessity, and to subject others to it. Among those things which\nthey wished not to be subject to necessity they placed our wills,\nknowing that they would not be free if subjected to necessity. For\nif that is to be called _our necessity_ which is not in our power,\nbut even though we be unwilling effects what it can effect,--as, for\ninstance, the necessity of death,--it is manifest that our wills by\nwhich we live uprightly or wickedly are not under such a necessity; for\nwe do many things which, if we were not willing, we should certainly\nnot do. This is primarily true of the act of willing itself,--for if\nwe will, it _is_; if we will not, it _is_ not,--for we should not will\nif we were unwilling. But if we define necessity to be that according\nto which we say that it is necessary that anything be of such or such\na nature, or be done in such and such a manner, I know not why we\nshould have any dread of that necessity taking away the freedom of\nour will. For we do not put the life of God or the foreknowledge of\nGod under necessity if we should say that it is necessary that God\nshould live for ever, and foreknow all things; as neither is His power\ndiminished when we say that He cannot die or fall into error,--for\nthis is in such a way impossible to Him, that if it were possible for\nHim, He would be of less power. But assuredly He is rightly called\nomnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He\nis called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on\naccount of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall\nHim, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some\nthings for the very reason that He is omnipotent. So also, when we say\nthat it is necessary that, when we will, we will by free choice, in\nso saying we both affirm what is true beyond doubt, and do not still\nsubject our wills thereby to a necessity which destroys liberty. Our\nwills, therefore, _exist_ as _wills_, and do themselves whatever we\ndo by willing, and which would not be done if we were unwilling. But\nwhen any one suffers anything, being unwilling, by the will of another,\neven in that case will retains its essential validity,--we do not mean\nthe will of the party who inflicts the suffering, for we resolve it\ninto the power of God. For if a will should simply exist, but not be\nable to do what it wills, it would be overborne by a more powerful\nwill. Nor would this be the case unless there had existed will, and\nthat not the will of the other party, but the will of him who willed,\nbut was not able to accomplish what he willed. Therefore, whatsoever\na man suffers contrary to his own will, he ought not to attribute to\nthe will of men, or of angels, or of any created spirit, but rather to\nHis will who gives power to wills. It is not the case, therefore, that\nbecause God foreknew what would be in the power of our wills, there is\nfor that reason nothing in the power of our wills. For he who foreknew\nthis did not foreknow nothing. Moreover, if He who foreknew what would\nbe in the power of our wills did not foreknow nothing, but something,\nassuredly, even though He did foreknow, there is something in the\npower of our wills. Therefore we are by no means compelled, either,\nretaining the prescience of God, to take away the freedom of the will,\nor, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny that He is prescient of\nfuture things, which is impious. But we embrace both. We faithfully\nand sincerely confess both. The former, that we may believe well; the\nlatter, that we may live well. For he lives ill who does not believe\nwell concerning God. Wherefore, be it far from us, in order to maintain\nour freedom, to deny the prescience of Him by whose help we are or\nshall be free. Consequently, it is not in vain that laws are enacted,\nand that reproaches, exhortations, praises, and vituperations are had\nrecourse to; for these also He foreknew, and they are of great avail,\neven as great as He foreknew that they would be of. Prayers, also, are\nof avail to procure those things which He foreknew that He would grant\nto those who offered them; and with justice have rewards been appointed\nfor good deeds, and punishments for sins. For a man does not therefore\nsin because God foreknew that he would sin. Nay, it cannot be doubted\nbut that it is the man himself who sins when he does sin, because He,\nwhose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew not that fate, or fortune,\nor something else would sin, but that the man himself would sin, who,\nif he wills not, sins not. But if he shall not will to sin, even this\ndid God foreknow.\n\n\n    11. _Concerning the universal providence of God in the laws of\n                  which all things are comprehended._\n\nTherefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit (which\nthree are one), one God omnipotent, creator and maker of every soul and\nof every body; by whose gift all are happy who are happy through verity\nand not through vanity; who made man a rational animal consisting\nof soul and body, who, when he sinned, neither permitted him to go\nunpunished, nor left him without mercy; who has given to the good and\nto the evil, being in common with stones, vegetable life in common with\ntrees, sensuous life in common with brutes, intellectual life in common\nwith angels alone; from whom is every mode, every species, every order;\nfrom whom are measure, number, weight; from whom is everything which\nhas an existence in nature, of whatever kind it be, and of whatever\nvalue; from whom are the seeds of forms and the forms of seeds, and\nthe motion of seeds and of forms; who gave also to flesh its origin,\nbeauty, health, reproductive fecundity, disposition of members, and\nthe salutary concord of its parts; who also to the irrational soul has\ngiven memory, sense, appetite, but to the rational soul, in addition to\nthese, has given intelligence and will; who has not left, not to speak\nof heaven and earth, angels and men, but not even the entrails of the\nsmallest and most contemptible animal, or the feather of a bird, or the\nlittle flower of a plant, or the leaf of a tree, without an harmony,\nand, as it were, a mutual peace among all its parts;--that God can\nnever be believed to have left the kingdoms of men, their dominations\nand servitudes, outside of the laws of His providence.\n\n\n  12. _By what virtues the ancient Romans merited that the true God,\n   although they did not worship Him, should enlarge their empire._\n\nWherefore let us go on to consider what virtues of the Romans they\nwere which the true God, in whose power are also the kingdoms of the\nearth, condescended to help in order to raise the empire, and also\nfor what reason He did so. And, in order to discuss this question on\nclearer ground, we have written the former books, to show that the\npower of those gods, who, they thought, were to be worshipped with\nsuch trifling and silly rites, had nothing to do in this matter; and\nalso what we have already accomplished of the present volume, to\nrefute the doctrine of fate, lest any one who might have been already\npersuaded that the Roman empire was not extended and preserved by\nthe worship of these gods, might still be attributing its extension\nand preservation to some kind of fate, rather than to the most\npowerful will of God most high. The ancient and primitive Romans,\ntherefore, though their history shows us that, like all the other\nnations, with the sole exception of the Hebrews, they worshipped\nfalse gods, and sacrificed victims, not to God, but to demons, have\nnevertheless this commendation bestowed on them by their historian,\nthat they were \"greedy of praise, prodigal of wealth, desirous of\ngreat glory, and content with a moderate fortune.\"[193] Glory they\nmost ardently loved: for it they wished to live, for it they did not\nhesitate to die. Every other desire was repressed by the strength of\ntheir passion for that one thing. At length their country itself,\nbecause it seemed inglorious to serve, but glorious to rule and to\ncommand, they first earnestly desired to be free, and then to be\nmistress. Hence it was that, not enduring the domination of kings,\nthey put the government into the hands of two chiefs, holding office\nfor a year, who were called consuls, not kings or lords.[194] But\nroyal pomp seemed inconsistent with the administration of a ruler\n(_regentis_), or the benevolence of one who consults (that is, for\nthe public good) (_consulentis_), but rather with the haughtiness of\na lord (_dominantis_). King Tarquin, therefore, having been banished,\nand the consular government having been instituted, it followed, as\nthe same author already alluded to says in his praises of the Romans,\nthat \"the state grew with amazing rapidity after it had obtained\nliberty, so great a desire of glory had taken possession of it.\"\nThat eagerness for praise and desire of glory, then, was that which\naccomplished those many wonderful things, laudable, doubtless, and\nglorious according to human judgment. The same Sallust praises the\ngreat men of his own time, Marcus Cato, and Caius C\u00e6sar, saying that\nfor a long time the republic had no one great in virtue, but that\nwithin his memory there had been these two men of eminent virtue, and\nvery different pursuits. Now, among the praises which he pronounces\non C\u00e6sar he put this, that he wished for a great empire, an army,\nand a new war, that he might have a sphere where his genius and\nvirtue might shine forth. Thus it was ever the prayer of men of\nheroic character that Bellona would excite miserable nations to war,\nand lash them into agitation with her bloody scourge, so that there\nmight be occasion for the display of their valour. This, forsooth, is\nwhat that desire of praise and thirst for glory did. Wherefore, by\nthe love of liberty in the first place, afterwards also by that of\ndomination and through the desire of praise and glory, they achieved\nmany great things; and their most eminent poet testifies to their\nhaving been prompted by all these motives:\n\n          \"Porsenna there, with pride elate,\n           Bids Rome to Tarquin ope her gate;\n           With arms he hems the city in,\n           \u00c6neas' sons stand firm to win.\"[195]\n\nAt that time it was their greatest ambition either to die bravely\nor to live free; but when liberty was obtained, so great a desire\nof glory took possession of them, that liberty alone was not enough\nunless domination also should be sought, their great ambition being\nthat which the same poet puts into the mouth of Jupiter:\n\n          \"Nay, Juno's self, whose wild alarms\n           Set ocean, earth, and heaven in arms,\n           Shall change for smiles her moody frown,\n           And vie with me in zeal to crown\n           Rome's sons, the nation of the gown.\n           So stands my will. There comes a day,\n           While Rome's great ages hold their way,\n           When old Assaracus's sons\n           Shall quit them on the myrmidons,\n           O'er Phthia and Mycen\u00e6 reign,\n           And humble Argos to their chain.\"[196]\n\nWhich things, indeed, Virgil makes Jupiter predict as future, whilst,\nin reality, he was only himself passing in review in his own mind\nthings which were already done, and which were beheld by him as\npresent realities. But I have mentioned them with the intention\nof showing that, next to liberty, the Romans so highly esteemed\ndomination, that it received a place among those things on which\nthey bestowed the greatest praise. Hence also it is that that poet,\npreferring to the arts of other nations those arts which peculiarly\nbelong to the Romans, namely, the arts of ruling and commanding, and\nof subjugating and vanquishing nations, says,\n\n          \"Others, belike, with happier grace,\n           From bronze or stone shall call the face,\n           Plead doubtful causes, map the skies,\n           And tell when planets set or rise;\n           But Roman thou, do thou control\n                 The nations far and wide;\n           Be this thy genius, to impose\n           The rule of peace on vanquished foes,\n           Show pity to the humbled soul,\n                 And crush the sons of pride.\"[197]\n\nThese arts they exercised with the more skill the less they gave\nthemselves up to pleasures, and to enervation of body and mind in\ncoveting and amassing riches, and through these corrupting morals, by\nextorting them from the miserable citizens and lavishing them on base\nstage-players. Hence these men of base character, who abounded when\nSallust wrote and Virgil sang these things, did not seek after honours\nand glory by these arts, but by treachery and deceit. Wherefore the\nsame says, \"But at first it was rather ambition than avarice that\nstirred the minds of men, which vice, however, is nearer to virtue. For\nglory, honour, and power are desired alike by the good man and by the\nignoble; but the former,\" he says, \"strives onward to them by the true\nway, whilst the other, knowing nothing of the good arts, seeks them by\nfraud and deceit.\"[198] And what is meant by seeking the attainment\nof glory, honour, and power by good arts, is to seek them by virtue,\nand not by deceitful intrigue; for the good and the ignoble man alike\ndesire these things, but the good man strives to overtake them by the\ntrue way. The way is virtue, along which he presses as to the goal of\npossession--namely, to glory, honour, and power. Now that this was a\nsentiment engrained in the Roman mind, is indicated even by the temples\nof their gods; for they built in very close proximity the temples of\nVirtue and Honour, worshipping as gods the gifts of God. Hence we can\nunderstand what they who were good thought to be the end of virtue,\nand to what they ultimately referred it, namely, to honour; for, as to\nthe bad, they had no virtue though they desired honour, and strove to\npossess it by fraud and deceit. Praise of a higher kind is bestowed\nupon Cato, for he says of him, \"The less he sought glory, the more it\nfollowed him.\"[199] We say praise of a higher kind; for the glory with\nthe desire of which the Romans burned is the judgment of men thinking\nwell of men. And therefore virtue is better, which is content with no\nhuman judgment save that of one's own conscience. Whence the apostle\nsays, \"For this is our glory, the testimony of our conscience.\"[200]\nAnd in another place he says, \"But let every one prove his own work,\nand then he shall have glory in himself, and not in another.\"[201] That\nglory, honour, and power, therefore, which they desired for themselves,\nand to which the good sought to attain by good arts, should not be\nsought after by virtue, but virtue by them. For there is no true virtue\nexcept that which is directed towards that end in which is the highest\nand ultimate good of man. Wherefore even the honours which Cato sought\nhe ought not to have sought, but the state ought to have conferred them\non him unsolicited, on account of his virtues.\n\nBut, of the two great Romans of that time, Cato was he whose virtue\nwas by far the nearest to the true idea of virtue. Wherefore, let\nus refer to the opinion of Cato himself, to discover what was the\njudgment he had formed concerning the condition of the state both\nthen and in former times. \"I do not think,\" he says, \"that it was by\narms that our ancestors made the republic great from being small.\nHad that been the case, the republic of our day would have been by\nfar more flourishing than that of their times, for the number of\nour allies and citizens is far greater; and, besides, we possess a\nfar greater abundance of armour and of horses than they did. But it\nwas other things than these that made them great, and we have none\nof them: industry at home, just government without, a mind free in\ndeliberation, addicted neither to crime nor to lust. Instead of\nthese, we have luxury and avarice, poverty in the state, opulence\namong citizens; we laud riches, we follow laziness; there is no\ndifference made between the good and the bad; all the rewards of\nvirtue are got possession of by intrigue. And no wonder, when every\nindividual consults only for his own good, when ye are the slaves of\npleasure at home, and, in public affairs, of money and favour, no\nwonder that an onslaught is made upon the unprotected republic.\"[202]\n\nHe who hears these words of Cato or of Sallust probably thinks that\nsuch praise bestowed on the ancient Romans was applicable to all of\nthem, or, at least, to very many of them. It is not so; otherwise\nthe things which Cato himself writes, and which I have quoted in\nthe second book of this work, would not be true. In that passage he\nsays, that even from the very beginning of the state wrongs were\ncommitted by the more powerful, which led to the separation of the\npeople from the fathers, besides which there were other internal\ndissensions; and the only time at which there existed a just and\nmoderate administration was after the banishment of the kings, and\nthat no longer than whilst they had cause to be afraid of Tarquin,\nand were carrying on the grievous war which had been undertaken on\nhis account against Etruria; but afterwards the fathers oppressed the\npeople as slaves, flogged them as the kings had done, drove them from\ntheir land, and, to the exclusion of all others, held the government\nin their own hands alone. And to these discords, whilst the fathers\nwere wishing to rule, and the people were unwilling to serve, the\nsecond Punic war put an end; for again great fear began to press upon\ntheir disquieted minds, holding them back from those distractions by\nanother and greater anxiety, and bringing them back to civil concord.\nBut the great things which were then achieved were accomplished\nthrough the administration of a few men, who were good in their own\nway. And by the wisdom and forethought of these few good men, which\nfirst enabled the republic to endure these evils and mitigated them,\nit waxed greater and greater. And this the same historian affirms,\nwhen he says that, reading and hearing of the many illustrious\nachievements of the Roman people in peace and in war, by land and by\nsea, he wished to understand what it was by which these great things\nwere specially sustained. For he knew that very often the Romans had\nwith a small company contended with great legions of the enemy; and\nhe knew also that with small resources they had carried on wars with\nopulent kings. And he says that, after having given the matter much\nconsideration, it seemed evident to him that the pre-eminent virtue\nof a few citizens had achieved the whole, and that that explained\nhow poverty overcame wealth, and small numbers great multitudes.\nBut, he adds, after that the state had been corrupted by luxury and\nindolence, again the republic, by its own greatness, was able to bear\nthe vices of its magistrates and generals. Wherefore even the praises\nof Cato are only applicable to a few; for only a few were possessed\nof that virtue which leads men to pursue after glory, honour, and\npower by the true way,--that is, by virtue itself. This industry at\nhome, of which Cato speaks, was the consequence of a desire to enrich\nthe public treasury, even though the result should be poverty at\nhome; and therefore, when he speaks of the evil arising out of the\ncorruption of morals, he reverses the expression, and says, \"Poverty\nin the state, riches at home.\"\n\n\n  13. _Concerning the love of praise, which, though it is a vice, is\n     reckoned a virtue, because by it greater vice is restrained._\n\nWherefore, when the kingdoms of the East had been illustrious for\na long time, it pleased God that there should also arise a Western\nempire, which, though later in time, should be more illustrious\nin extent and greatness. And, in order that it might overcome the\ngrievous evils which existed among other nations, He purposely\ngranted it to such men as, for the sake of honour, and praise, and\nglory, consulted well for their country, in whose glory they sought\ntheir own, and whose safety they did not hesitate to prefer to their\nown, suppressing the desire of wealth and many other vices for\nthis one vice, namely, the love of praise. For he has the soundest\nperception who recognises that even the love of praise is a vice; nor\nhas this escaped the perception of the poet Horace, who says,\n\n          \"You're bloated by ambition? take advice:\n           Yon book will ease you if you read it thrice.\"[203]\n\nAnd the same poet, in a lyric song, hath thus spoken with the desire\nof repressing the passion for domination:\n\n          \"Rule an ambitious spirit, and thou hast\n           A wider kingdom than if thou shouldst join\n           To distant Gades Lybia, and thus\n           Shouldst hold in service either Carthaginian.\"[204]\n\nNevertheless, they who restrain baser lusts, not by the power of\nthe Holy Spirit obtained by the faith of piety, or by the love\nof intelligible beauty, but by desire of human praise, or, at\nall events, restrain them better by the love of such praise, are\nnot indeed yet holy, but only less base. Even Tully was not able\nto conceal this fact; for, in the same books which he wrote, _De\nRepublica_, when speaking concerning the education of a chief of\nthe state, who ought, he says, to be nourished on glory, goes on to\nsay that their ancestors did many wonderful and illustrious things\nthrough desire of glory. So far, therefore, from resisting this\nvice, they even thought that it ought to be excited and kindled up,\nsupposing that that would be beneficial to the republic. But not even\nin his books on philosophy does Tully dissimulate this poisonous\nopinion, for he there avows it more clearly than day. For when he is\nspeaking of those studies which are to be pursued with a view to the\n_true good_, and not with the vainglorious desire of human praise, he\nintroduces the following universal and general statement:\n\n \"Honour nourishes the arts, and all are stimulated to the\n prosecution of studies by glory; and those pursuits are always\n neglected which are generally discredited.\"[205]\n\n\n     14. _Concerning the eradication of the love of human praise,\n          because all the glory of the righteous is in God._\n\nIt is, therefore, doubtless far better to resist this desire than to\nyield to it, for the purer one is from this defilement, the liker\nis he to God; and, though this vice be not thoroughly eradicated\nfrom his heart,--for it does not cease to tempt even the minds of\nthose who are making good progress in virtue,--at any rate, let\nthe desire of glory be surpassed by the love of righteousness, so\nthat, if there be seen anywhere \"lying neglected things which are\ngenerally discredited,\" if they are good, if they are right, even\nthe love of human praise may blush and yield to the love of truth.\nFor so hostile is this vice to pious faith, if the love of glory be\ngreater in the heart than the fear or love of God, that the Lord\nsaid, \"How can ye believe, who look for glory from one another,\nand do not seek the glory which is from God alone?\"[206] Also,\nconcerning some who had believed on Him, but were afraid to confess\nHim openly, the evangelist says, \"They loved the praise of men more\nthan the praise of God;\"[207] which did not the holy apostles, who,\nwhen they proclaimed the name of Christ in those places where it\nwas not only discredited, and therefore neglected,--according as\nCicero says, \"Those things are always neglected which are generally\ndiscredited,\"--but was even held in the utmost detestation, holding\nto what they had heard from the Good Master, who was also the\nphysician of minds, \"If any one shall deny me before men, him will I\nalso deny before my Father who is in heaven, and before the angels\nof God,\"[208] amidst maledictions and reproaches, and most grievous\npersecutions and cruel punishments, were not deterred from the\npreaching of human salvation by the noise of human indignation. And\nwhen, as they did and spake divine things, and lived divine lives,\nconquering, as it were, hard hearts, and introducing into them the\npeace of righteousness, great glory followed them in the church of\nChrist, they did not rest in that as in the end of their virtue, but,\nreferring that glory itself to the glory of God, by whose grace they\nwere what they were, they sought to kindle, also by that same flame,\nthe minds of those for whose good they consulted, to the love of Him,\nby whom they could be made to be what they themselves were. For their\nMaster had taught them not to seek to be good for the sake of human\nglory, saying, \"Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before\nmen to be seen of them, or otherwise ye shall not have a reward from\nyour Father who is in heaven.\"[209] But again, lest, understanding\nthis wrongly, they should, through fear of pleasing men, be less\nuseful through concealing their goodness, showing for what end they\nought to make it known, He says, \"Let your works shine before men,\nthat they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in\nheaven.\"[210] Not, observe, \"that ye may be seen by them, that is, in\norder that their eyes may be directed upon you,\"--for of yourselves\nye are nothing,--but \"that they may glorify your Father who is in\nheaven,\" by fixing their regards on whom they may become such as ye\nare. These the martyrs followed, who surpassed the Sc\u00e6volas, and the\nCurtiuses, and the Deciuses, both in true virtue, because in true\npiety, and also in the greatness of their number. But since those\nRomans were in an earthly city, and had before them, as the end of\nall the offices undertaken in its behalf, its safety, and a kingdom,\nnot in heaven, but in earth,--not in the sphere of eternal life, but\nin the sphere of demise and succession, where the dead are succeeded\nby the dying,--what else but glory should they love, by which they\nwished even after death to live in the mouths of their admirers?\n\n\n     15. _Concerning the temporal reward which God granted to the\n                        virtues of the Romans._\n\nNow, therefore, with regard to those to whom God did not purpose to\ngive eternal life with His holy angels in His own celestial city,\nto the society of which that true piety which does not render the\nservice of religion, which the Greeks call \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, to any save the\ntrue God conducts, if He had also withheld from them the terrestrial\nglory of that most excellent empire, a reward would not have been\nrendered to their good arts,--that is, their virtues,--by which they\nsought to attain so great glory. For as to those who seem to do\nsome good that they may receive glory from men, the Lord also says,\n\"Verily I say unto you, they have received their reward.\"[211] So\nalso these despised their own private affairs for the sake of the\nrepublic, and for its treasury resisted avarice, consulted for the\ngood of their country with a spirit of freedom, addicted neither to\nwhat their laws pronounced to be crime nor to lust. By all these\nacts, as by the true way, they pressed forward to honours, power,\nand glory; they were honoured among almost all nations; they imposed\nthe laws of their empire upon many nations; and at this day, both in\nliterature and history, they are glorious among almost all nations.\nThere is no reason why they should complain against the justice of\nthe supreme and true God,--\"they have received their reward.\"\n\n\n   16. _Concerning the reward of the holy citizens of the celestial\n  city, to whom the example of the virtues of the Roman are useful._\n\nBut the reward of the saints is far different, who even here endured\nreproaches for that city of God which is hateful to the lovers of\nthis world. That city is eternal. There none are born, for none die.\nThere is true and full felicity,--not a goddess, but a gift of God.\nThence we receive the pledge of faith, whilst on our pilgrimage we\nsigh for its beauty. There rises not the sun on the good and the\nevil, but the Sun of Righteousness protects the good alone. There no\ngreat industry shall be expended to enrich the public treasury by\nsuffering privations at home, for there is the common treasury of\ntruth. And, therefore, it was not only for the sake of recompensing\nthe citizens of Rome that her empire and glory had been so signally\nextended, but also that the citizens of that eternal city, during\ntheir pilgrimage here, might diligently and soberly contemplate these\nexamples, and see what a love they owe to the supernal country on\naccount of life eternal, if the terrestrial country was so much\nbeloved by its citizens on account of human glory.\n\n\n   17. _To what profit the Romans carried on wars, and how much they\n     contributed to the well-being of those whom they conquered._\n\nFor, as far as this life of mortals is concerned, which is spent\nand ended in a few days, what does it matter under whose government\na dying man lives, if they who govern do not force him to impiety\nand iniquity? Did the Romans at all harm those nations, on whom,\nwhen subjugated, they imposed their laws, except in as far as that\nwas accomplished with great slaughter in war? Now, had it been done\nwith consent of the nations, it would have been done with greater\nsuccess, but there would have been no glory of conquest, for neither\ndid the Romans themselves live exempt from those laws which they\nimposed on others. Had this been done without Mars and Bellona, so\nthat there should have been no place for victory, no one conquering\nwhere no one had fought, would not the condition of the Romans and\nof the other nations have been one and the same, especially if that\nhad been done at once which afterwards was done most humanely and\nmost acceptably, namely, the admission of all to the rights of Roman\ncitizens who belonged to the Roman empire, and if that had been made\nthe privilege of all which was formerly the privilege of a few, with\nthis one condition, that the humbler class who had no lands of their\nown should live at the public expense--an alimentary impost, which\nwould have been paid with a much better grace by them into the hands\nof good administrators of the republic, of which they were members,\nby their own hearty consent, than it would have been paid with had it\nto be extorted from them as conquered men? For I do not see what it\nmakes for the safety, good morals, and certainly not for the dignity,\nof men, that some have conquered and others have been conquered,\nexcept that it yields them that most insane pomp of human glory, in\nwhich \"they have received their reward,\" who burned with excessive\ndesire of it, and carried on most eager wars. For do not their lands\npay tribute? Have they any privilege of learning what the others are\nnot privileged to learn? Are there not many senators in the other\ncountries who do not even know Rome by sight? Take away outward\nshow,[212] and what are all men after all but men? But even though\nthe perversity of the age should permit that all the better men\nshould be more highly honoured than others, neither thus should human\nhonour be held at a great price, for it is smoke which has no weight.\nBut let us avail ourselves even in these things of the kindness of\nGod. Let us consider how great things they despised, how great things\nthey endured, what lusts they subdued for the sake of human glory,\nwho merited that glory, as it were, in reward for such virtues; and\nlet this be useful to us even in suppressing pride, so that, as that\ncity in which it has been promised us to reign as far surpasses this\none as heaven is distant from the earth, as eternal life surpasses\ntemporal joy, solid glory empty praise, or the society of angels the\nsociety of mortals, or the glory of Him who made the sun and moon\nthe light of the sun and moon, the citizens of so great a country\nmay not seem to themselves to have done anything very great, if, in\norder to obtain it, they have done some good works or endured some\nevils, when those men for this terrestrial country already obtained,\ndid such great things, suffered such great things. And especially\nare all these things to be considered, because the remission of\nsins which collects citizens to the celestial country has something\nin it to which a shadowy resemblance is found in that asylum of\nRomulus, whither escape from the punishment of all manner of crimes\ncongregated that multitude with which the state was to be founded.\n\n\n  18. _How far Christians ought to be from boasting, if they have done\n      anything for the love of the eternal country, when the Romans did\n      such great things for human glory and a terrestrial city._\n\nWhat great thing, therefore, is it for that eternal and celestial\ncity to despise all the charms of this world, however pleasant, if\nfor the sake of this terrestrial city Brutus could even put to death\nhis son,--a sacrifice which the heavenly city compels no one to make?\nBut certainly it is more difficult to put to death one's sons, than\nto do what is required to be done for the heavenly country, even\nto distribute to the poor those things which were looked upon as\nthings to be amassed and laid up for one's children, or to let them\ngo, if there arise any temptation which compels us to do so, for\nthe sake of faith and righteousness. For it is not earthly riches\nwhich make us or our sons happy; for they must either be lost by us\nin our lifetime, or be possessed when we are dead, by whom we know\nnot, or perhaps by whom we would not. But it is God who makes us\nhappy, who is the true riches of minds. But of Brutus, even the poet\nwho celebrates his praises testifies that it was the occasion of\nunhappiness to him that he slew his son, for he says,\n\n          \"And call his own rebellious seed\n           For menaced liberty to bleed.\n           Unhappy father! howsoe'er\n           The deed be judged by after days.\"[213]\n\nBut in the following verse he consoles him in his unhappiness, saying,\n\n          \"His country's love shall all o'erbear.\"\n\nThere are those two things, namely, liberty and the desire of human\npraise, which compelled the Romans to admirable deeds. If, therefore,\nfor the liberty of dying men, and for the desire of human praise\nwhich is sought after by mortals, sons could be put to death by a\nfather, what great thing is it, if, for the true liberty which has\nmade us free from the dominion of sin, and death, and the devil,--not\nthrough the desire of human praise, but through the earnest desire of\nfreeing men, not from King Tarquin, but from demons and the prince\nof the demons,--we should, I do not say put to death our sons, but\nreckon among our sons Christ's poor ones? If, also, another Roman\nchief, surnamed Torquatus, slew his son, not because he fought\nagainst his country, but because, being challenged by an enemy,\nhe through youthful impetuosity fought, though for his country,\nyet contrary to orders which he his father had given as general;\nand this he did, notwithstanding that his son was victorious, lest\nthere should be more evil in the example of authority despised, than\ngood in the glory of slaying an enemy;--if, I say, Torquatus acted\nthus, wherefore should they boast themselves, who, for the laws of\na celestial country, despise all earthly good things, which are\nloved far less than sons? If Furius Camillus, who was condemned by\nthose who envied him, notwithstanding that he had thrown off from\nthe necks of his countrymen the yoke of their most bitter enemies,\nthe Veientes, again delivered his ungrateful country from the Gauls,\nbecause he had no other in which he could have better opportunities\nfor living a life of glory;--if Camillus did thus, why should he be\nextolled as having done some great thing, who, having, it may be,\nsuffered in the church at the hands of carnal enemies most grievous\nand dishonouring injury, has not betaken himself to heretical\nenemies, or himself raised some heresy against her, but has rather\ndefended her, as far as he was able, from the most pernicious\nperversity of heretics, since there is not another church, I say not\nin which one can live a life of glory, but in which eternal life can\nbe obtained? If Mucius, in order that peace might be made with King\nPorsenna, who was pressing the Romans with a most grievous war, when\nhe did not succeed in slaying Porsenna, but slew another by mistake\nfor him, reached forth his right hand and laid it on a red-hot altar,\nsaying that many such as he saw him to be had conspired for his\ndestruction, so that Porsenna, terrified at his daring, and at the\nthought of a conspiracy of such as he, without any delay recalled all\nhis warlike purposes, and made peace;--if, I say, Mucius did this,\nwho shall speak of his meritorious claims to the kingdom of heaven,\nif for it he may have given to the flames not one hand, but even his\nwhole body, and that not by his own spontaneous act, but because he\nwas persecuted by another? If Curtius, spurring on his steed, threw\nhimself all armed into a precipitous gulf, obeying the oracles of\ntheir gods, which had commanded that the Romans should throw into\nthat gulf the best thing which they possessed, and they could only\nunderstand thereby that, since they excelled in men and arms, the\ngods had commanded that an armed man should be cast headlong into\nthat destruction;--if he did this, shall we say that that man has\ndone a great thing for the eternal city who may have died by a like\ndeath, not, however, precipitating himself spontaneously into a\ngulf, but having suffered this death at the hands of some enemy of\nhis faith, more especially when he has received from his Lord, who\nis also King of his country, a more certain oracle, \"Fear not them\nwho kill the body, but cannot kill the soul?\"[214] If the Decii\ndedicated themselves to death, consecrating themselves in a form of\nwords, as it were, that falling, and pacifying by their blood the\nwrath of the gods, they might be the means of delivering the Roman\narmy;--if they did this, let not the holy martyrs carry themselves\nproudly, as though they had done some meritorious thing for a share\nin that country where are eternal life and felicity, if even to\nthe shedding of their blood, loving not only the brethren for whom\nit was shed, but, according as had been commanded them, even their\nenemies by whom it was being shed, they have vied with one another in\nfaith of love and love of faith. If Marcus Pulvillus, when engaged\nin dedicating a temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, received with\nsuch indifference the false intelligence which was brought to him of\nthe death of his son, with the intention of so agitating him that he\nshould go away, and thus the glory of dedicating the temple should\nfall to his colleague;--if he received that intelligence with such\nindifference that he even ordered that his son should be cast out\nunburied, the love of glory having overcome in his heart the grief\nof bereavement, how shall any one affirm that he has done a great\nthing for the preaching of the gospel, by which the citizens of the\nheavenly city are delivered from divers errors, and gathered together\nfrom divers wanderings, to whom his Lord has said, when anxious about\nthe burial of his father, \"Follow me, and let the dead bury their\ndead?\"[215] Regulus, in order not to break his oath, even with his\nmost cruel enemies, returned to them from Rome itself, because (as\nhe is said to have replied to the Romans when they wished to retain\nhim) he could not have the dignity of an honourable citizen at Rome\nafter having been a slave to the Africans, and the Carthaginians put\nhim to death with the utmost tortures, because he had spoken against\nthem in the senate. If Regulus acted thus, what tortures are not to\nbe despised for the sake of good faith toward that country to whose\nbeatitude faith itself leads? Or what will a man have rendered to the\nLord for all He has bestowed upon him, if, for the faithfulness he\nowes to Him, he shall have suffered such things as Regulus suffered\nat the hands of his most ruthless enemies for the good faith which\nhe owed to them? And how shall a Christian dare vaunt himself of\nhis voluntary poverty, which he has chosen in order that during the\npilgrimage of this life he may walk the more disencumbered on the\nway which leads to the country where the true riches are, even God\nHimself;--how, I say, shall he vaunt himself for this, when he hears\nor reads that Lucius Valerius, who died when he was holding the\noffice of consul, was so poor that his funeral expenses were paid\nwith money collected by the people?--or when he hears that Quintius\nCincinnatus, who, possessing only four acres of land, and cultivating\nthem with his own hands, was taken from the plough to be made\ndictator,--an office more honourable even than that of consul,--and\nthat, after having won great glory by conquering the enemy, he\npreferred notwithstanding to continue in his poverty? Or how shall he\nboast of having done a great thing, who has not been prevailed upon\nby the offer of any reward of this world to renounce his connection\nwith that heavenly and eternal country, when he hears that Fabricius\ncould not be prevailed on to forsake the Roman city by the great\ngifts offered to him by Pyrrhus king of the Epirots, who promised him\nthe fourth part of his kingdom, but preferred to abide there in his\npoverty as a private individual? For if, when their republic,--that\nis, the interest of the people, the interest of the country, the\ncommon interest,--was most prosperous and wealthy, they themselves\nwere so poor in their own houses, that one of them, who had already\nbeen twice a consul, was expelled from that senate of poor men by\nthe censor, because he was discovered to possess ten pounds weight\nof silver-plate,--since, I say, those very men by whose triumphs the\npublic treasury was enriched were so poor, ought not all Christians,\nwho make common property of their riches with a far nobler purpose,\neven that (according to what is written in the Acts of the Apostles)\nthey may distribute to each one according to his need, and that no\none may say that anything is his own, but that all things may be\ntheir common possession,[216]--ought they not to understand that they\nshould not vaunt themselves, because they do that to obtain the\nsociety of angels, when those men did well-nigh the same thing to\npreserve the glory of the Romans?\n\nHow could these, and whatever like things are found in the Roman\nhistory, have become so widely known, and have been proclaimed by so\ngreat a fame, had not the Roman empire, extending far and wide, been\nraised to its greatness by magnificent successes? Wherefore, through\nthat empire, so extensive and of so long continuance, so illustrious\nand glorious also through the virtues of such great men, the reward\nwhich they sought was rendered to their earnest aspirations, and also\nexamples are set before us, containing necessary admonition, in order\nthat we may be stung with shame if we shall see that we have not held\nfast those virtues for the sake of the most glorious city of God, which\nare, in whatever way, resembled by those virtues which they held fast\nfor the sake of the glory of a terrestrial city, and that, too, if we\nshall feel conscious that we have held them fast, we may not be lifted\nup with pride, because, as the apostle says, \"The sufferings of the\npresent time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be\nrevealed in us.\"[217] But so far as regards human and temporal glory,\nthe lives of these ancient Romans were reckoned sufficiently worthy.\nTherefore, also, we see, in the light of that truth which, veiled in\nthe Old Testament, is revealed in the New, namely, that it is not in\nview of terrestrial and temporal benefits, which divine providence\ngrants promiscuously to good and evil, that God is to be worshipped,\nbut in view of eternal life, everlasting gifts, and of the society\nof the heavenly city itself;--in the light of this truth we see that\nthe Jews were most righteously given as a trophy to the glory of the\nRomans; for we see that these Romans, who rested on earthly glory, and\nsought to obtain it by virtues, such as they were, conquered those who,\nin their great depravity, slew and rejected the giver of true glory,\nand of the eternal city.\n\n\n   19. _Concerning the difference between true glory and the desire\n                            of domination._\n\nThere is assuredly a difference between the desire of human glory\nand the desire of domination; for, though he who has an overweening\ndelight in human glory will be also very prone to aspire earnestly\nafter domination, nevertheless they who desire the true glory even of\nhuman praise strive not to displease those who judge well of them.\nFor there are many good moral qualities, of which many are competent\njudges, although they are not possessed by many; and by those good\nmoral qualities those men press on to glory, honour, and domination,\nof whom Sallust says, \"But they press on by the true way.\"\n\nBut whosoever, without possessing that desire of glory which makes\none fear to displease those who judge his conduct, desires domination\nand power, very often seeks to obtain what he loves by most open\ncrimes. Therefore he who desires glory presses on to obtain it either\nby the true way, or certainly by deceit and artifice, wishing to\nappear good when he is not. Therefore to him who possesses virtues\nit is a great virtue to despise glory; for contempt of it is seen by\nGod, but is not manifest to human judgment. For whatever any one does\nbefore the eyes of men in order to show himself to be a despiser of\nglory, if they suspect that he is doing it in order to get greater\npraise,--that is, greater glory,--he has no means of demonstrating\nto the perceptions of those who suspect him that the case is really\notherwise than they suspect it to be. But he who despises the judgment\nof praisers, despises also the rashness of suspectors. Their salvation,\nindeed, he does not despise, if he is truly good; for so great is the\nrighteousness of that man who receives his virtues from the Spirit of\nGod, that he loves his very enemies, and so loves them that he desires\nthat his haters and detractors may be turned to righteousness, and\nbecome his associates, and that not in an earthly but in a heavenly\ncountry. But with respect to his praisers, though he sets little value\non their praise, he does not set little value on their love; neither\ndoes he elude their praise, lest he should forfeit their love. And,\ntherefore, he strives earnestly to have their praises directed to Him\nfrom whom every one receives whatever in him is truly praiseworthy. But\nhe who is a despiser of glory, but is greedy of domination, exceeds\nthe beasts in the vices of cruelty and luxuriousness. Such, indeed,\nwere certain of the Romans, who, wanting the love of esteem, wanted\nnot the thirst for domination; and that there were many such, history\ntestifies. But it was Nero C\u00e6sar who was the first to reach the summit,\nand, as it were, the citadel, of this vice; for so great was his\nluxuriousness, that one would have thought there was nothing manly to\nbe dreaded in him, and such his cruelty, that, had not the contrary\nbeen known, no one would have thought there was anything effeminate in\nhis character. Nevertheless power and domination are not given even to\nsuch men save by the providence of the most high God, when He judges\nthat the state of human affairs is worthy of such lords. The divine\nutterance is clear on this matter; for the Wisdom of God thus speaks:\n\"By me kings reign, and tyrants possess the land.\"[218] But, that it\nmay not be thought that by \"tyrants\" is meant, not wicked and impious\nkings, but brave men, in accordance with the ancient use of the word,\nas when Virgil says,\n\n          \"For know that treaty may not stand\n           Where king greets king and joins not hand,\"[219]\n\nin another place it is most unambiguously said of God, that He\n\"maketh the man who is an hypocrite to reign on account of the\nperversity of the people.\"[220] Wherefore, though I have, according\nto my ability, shown for what reason God, who alone is true and just,\nhelped forward the Romans, who were good according to a certain\nstandard of an earthly state, to the acquirement of the glory of so\ngreat an empire, there may be, nevertheless, a more hidden cause,\nknown better to God than to us, depending on the diversity of the\nmerits of the human race. Among all who are truly pious, it is at all\nevents agreed that no one without true piety--that is, true worship\nof the true God--can have true virtue; and that it is not true virtue\nwhich is the slave of human praise. Though, nevertheless, they who\nare not citizens of the eternal city, which is called the city of\nGod in the sacred Scriptures, are more useful to the earthly city\nwhen they possess even that virtue than if they had not even that.\nBut there could be nothing more fortunate for human affairs than\nthat, by the mercy of God, they who are endowed with true piety of\nlife, if they have the skill for ruling people, should also have the\npower. But such men, however great virtues they may possess in this\nlife, attribute it solely to the grace of God that He has bestowed\nit on them--willing, believing, seeking. And, at the same time, they\nunderstand how far they are short of that perfection of righteousness\nwhich exists in the society of those holy angels for which they are\nstriving to fit themselves. But however much that virtue may be\npraised and cried up, which without true piety is the slave of human\nglory, it is not at all to be compared even to the feeble beginnings\nof the virtue of the saints, whose hope is placed in the grace and\nmercy of the true God.\n\n\n   20. _That it is as shameful for the virtues to serve human glory\n                         as bodily pleasure._\n\nPhilosophers,--who place the end of human good in virtue itself, in\norder to put to shame certain other philosophers, who indeed approve\nof the virtues, but measure them all with reference to the end of\nbodily pleasure, and think that this pleasure is to be sought for its\nown sake, but the virtues on account of pleasure,--are wont to paint\na kind of word-picture, in which Pleasure sits like a luxurious queen\non a royal seat, and all the virtues are subjected to her as slaves,\nwatching her nod, that they may do whatever she shall command. She\ncommands Prudence to be ever on the watch to discover how Pleasure\nmay rule, and be safe. Justice she orders to grant what benefits\nshe can, in order to secure those friendships which are necessary\nfor bodily pleasure; to do wrong to no one, lest, on account of the\nbreaking of the laws, Pleasure be not able to live in security.\nFortitude she orders to keep her mistress, that is, Pleasure, bravely\nin her mind, if any affliction befall her body which does not\noccasion death, in order that by remembrance of former delights she\nmay mitigate the poignancy of present pain. Temperance she commands\nto take only a certain quantity even of the most favourite food,\nlest, through immoderate use, anything prove hurtful by disturbing\nthe health of the body, and thus Pleasure, which the Epicureans make\nto consist chiefly in the health of the body, be grievously offended.\nThus the virtues, with the whole dignity of their glory, will be the\nslaves of Pleasure, as of some imperious and disreputable woman.\n\nThere is nothing, say our philosophers, more disgraceful and\nmonstrous than this picture, and which the eyes of good men can\nless endure. And they say the truth. But I do not think that the\npicture would be sufficiently becoming, even if it were made so that\nthe virtues should be represented as the slaves of human glory;\nfor, though that glory be not a luxurious woman, it is nevertheless\npuffed up, and has much vanity in it. Wherefore it is unworthy\nof the solidity and firmness of the virtues to represent them as\nserving this glory, so that Prudence shall provide nothing, Justice\ndistribute nothing, Temperance moderate nothing, except to the end\nthat men may be pleased and vainglory served. Nor will they be able\nto defend themselves from the charge of such baseness, whilst they,\nby way of being despisers of glory, disregard the judgment of other\nmen, seem to themselves wise, and please themselves. For their\nvirtue,--if, indeed, it is virtue at all,--is only in another way\nsubjected to human praise; for he who seeks to please himself seeks\nstill to please man. But he who, with true piety towards God, whom\nhe loves, believes, and hopes in, fixes his attention more on those\nthings in which he displeases himself, than on those things, if there\nare any such, which please himself, or rather, not himself, but the\ntruth, does not attribute that by which he can now please the truth\nto anything but to the mercy of Him whom he has feared to displease,\ngiving thanks for what in him is healed, and pouring out prayers for\nthe healing of that which is yet unhealed.\n\n\n   21. _That the Roman dominion was granted by Him from whom is all\n         power, and by whose providence all things are ruled._\n\nThese things being so, we do not attribute the power of giving kingdoms\nand empires to any save to the true God, who gives happiness in the\nkingdom of heaven to the pious alone, but gives kingly power on earth\nboth to the pious and the impious, as it may please Him, whose good\npleasure is always just. For though we have said something about the\nprinciples which guide His administration, in so far as it has seemed\ngood to Him to explain it, nevertheless it is too much for us, and far\nsurpasses our strength, to discuss the hidden things of men's hearts,\nand by a clear examination to determine the merits of various kingdoms.\nHe, therefore, who is the one true God, who never leaves the human\nrace without just judgment and help, gave a kingdom to the Romans when\nHe would, and as great as He would, as He did also to the Assyrians,\nand even the Persians, by whom, as their own books testify, only two\ngods are worshipped, the one good and the other evil,--to say nothing\nconcerning the Hebrew people, of whom I have already spoken as much\nas seemed necessary, who, as long as they were a kingdom, worshipped\nnone save the true God. The same, therefore, who gave to the Persians\nharvests, though they did not worship the goddess Segetia, who gave the\nother blessings of the earth, though they did not worship the many gods\nwhich the Romans supposed to preside, each one over some particular\nthing, or even many of them over each several thing,--He, I say, gave\nthe Persians dominion, though they worshipped none of those gods to\nwhom the Romans believed themselves indebted for the empire. And the\nsame is true in respect of men as well as nations. He who gave power to\nMarius gave it also to Caius C\u00e6sar; He who gave it to Augustus gave it\nalso to Nero; He also who gave it to the most benignant emperors, the\nVespasians, father and son, gave it also to the cruel Domitian; and,\nfinally, to avoid the necessity of going over them all, He who gave it\nto the Christian Constantine gave it also to the apostate Julian, whose\ngifted mind was deceived by a sacrilegious and detestable curiosity,\nstimulated by the love of power. And it was because he was addicted\nthrough curiosity to vain oracles, that, confident of victory, he\nburned the ships which were laden with the provisions necessary for\nhis army, and therefore, engaging with hot zeal in rashly audacious\nenterprises, he was soon slain, as the just consequence of his\nrecklessness, and left his army unprovisioned in an enemy's country,\nand in such a predicament that it never could have escaped, save by\naltering the boundaries of the Roman empire, in violation of that omen\nof the god Terminus of which I spoke in the preceding book; for the god\nTerminus yielded to necessity, though he had not yielded to Jupiter.\nManifestly these things are ruled and governed by the one God according\nas He pleases; and if His motives are hid, are they therefore unjust?\n\n\n   22. _The durations and issues of war depend on the will of God._\n\nThus also the durations of wars are determined by Him as He may see\nmeet, according to His righteous will, and pleasure, and mercy, to\nafflict or to console the human race, so that they are sometimes of\nlonger, sometimes of shorter duration. The war of the Pirates and the\nthird Punic war were terminated with incredible celerity. Also the war\nof the fugitive gladiators, though in it many Roman generals and the\nconsuls were defeated, and Italy was terribly wasted and ravaged, was\nnevertheless ended in the third year, having itself been, during its\ncontinuance, the end of much. The Picentes, the Marsi, and the Peligni,\nnot distant but Italian nations, after a long and most loyal servitude\nunder the Roman yoke, attempted to raise their heads into liberty,\nthough many nations had now been subjected to the Roman power, and\nCarthage had been overthrown. In this Italian war the Romans were very\noften defeated, and two consuls perished, besides other noble senators;\nnevertheless this calamity was not protracted over a long space of\ntime, for the fifth year put an end to it. But the second Punic war,\nlasting for the space of eighteen years, and occasioning the greatest\ndisasters and calamities to the republic, wore out and well-nigh\nconsumed the strength of the Romans; for in two battles about seventy\nthousand Romans fell.[221] The first Punic war was terminated after\nhaving been waged for three-and-twenty years. The Mithridatic war was\nwaged for forty years. And that no one may think that in the early and\nmuch belauded times of the Romans they were far braver and more able\nto bring wars to a speedy termination, the Samnite war was protracted\nfor nearly fifty years; and in this war the Romans were so beaten that\nthey were even put under the yoke. But because they did not love glory\nfor the sake of justice, but seemed rather to have loved justice for\nthe sake of glory, they broke the peace and the treaty which had been\nconcluded. These things I mention, because many, ignorant of past\nthings, and some also dissimulating what they know, if in Christian\ntimes they see any war protracted a little longer than they expected,\nstraightway make a fierce and insolent attack on our religion,\nexclaiming that, but for it, the deities would have been supplicated\nstill, according to ancient rites; and then, by that bravery of the\nRomans, which, with the help of Mars and Bellona, speedily brought to\nan end such great wars, this war also would be speedily terminated. Let\nthem, therefore, who have read history recollect what long-continued\nwars, having various issues and entailing woful slaughter, were waged\nby the ancient Romans, in accordance with the general truth that\nthe earth, like the tempestuous deep, is subject to agitations from\ntempests--tempests of such evils, in various degrees,--and let them\nsometimes confess what they do not like to own, and not, by madly\nspeaking against God, destroy themselves and deceive the ignorant.\n\n\n  23. _Concerning the war in which Radagaisus, king of the Goths, a\n      worshipper of demons, was conquered in one day, with all his\n      mighty forces._\n\nNevertheless they do not mention with thanksgiving what God has very\nrecently, and within our own memory, wonderfully and mercifully done,\nbut as far as in them lies they attempt, if possible, to bury it in\nuniversal oblivion. But should we be silent about these things, we\nshould be in like manner ungrateful. When Radagaisus, king of the\nGoths, having taken up his position very near to the city, with a\nvast and savage army, was already close upon the Romans, he was in\none day so speedily and so thoroughly beaten, that, whilst not even\none Roman was wounded, much less slain, far more than a hundred\nthousand of his army were prostrated, and he himself and his sons,\nhaving been captured, were forthwith put to death, suffering the\npunishment they deserved. For had so impious a man, with so great and\nso impious a host, entered the city, whom would he have spared? what\ntombs of the martyrs would he have respected? in his treatment of what\nperson would he have manifested the fear of God? whose blood would\nhe have refrained from shedding? whose chastity would he have wished\nto preserve inviolate? But how loud would they not have been in the\npraises of their gods! How insultingly they would have boasted, saying\nthat Radagaisus had conquered, that he had been able to achieve such\ngreat things, because he propitiated and won over the gods by daily\nsacrifices,--a thing which the Christian religion did not allow the\nRomans to do! For when he was approaching to those places where he\nwas overwhelmed at the nod of the Supreme Majesty, as his fame was\neverywhere increasing, it was being told us at Carthage that the\npagans were believing, publishing, and boasting, that he, on account\nof the help and protection of the gods friendly to him, because of\nthe sacrifices which he was said to be daily offering to them, would\ncertainly not be conquered by those who were not performing such\nsacrifices to the Roman gods, and did not even permit that they should\nbe offered by any one. And now these wretched men do not give thanks\nto God for His great mercy, who, having determined to chastise the\ncorruption of men, which was worthy of far heavier chastisement than\nthe corruption of the barbarians, tempered His indignation with such\nmildness as, in the first instance, to cause that the king of the Goths\nshould be conquered in a wonderful manner, lest glory should accrue to\ndemons, whom he was known to be supplicating, and thus the minds of\nthe weak should be overthrown; and then, afterwards, to cause that,\nwhen Rome was to be taken, it should be taken by those barbarians\nwho, contrary to any custom of all former wars, protected, through\nreverence for the Christian religion, those who fled for refuge to\nthe sacred places, and who so opposed the demons themselves, and the\nrites of impious sacrifices, that they seemed to be carrying on a far\nmore terrible war with them than with men. Thus did the true Lord\nand Governor of things both scourge the Romans mercifully, and, by\nthe marvellous defeat of the worshippers of demons, show that those\nsacrifices were not necessary even for the safety of present things;\nso that, by those who do not obstinately hold out, but prudently\nconsider the matter, true religion may not be deserted on account of\nthe urgencies of the present time, but may be more clung to in most\nconfident expectation of eternal life.\n\n\n  24. _What was the happiness of the Christian emperors, and how far\n                        it was true happiness._\n\nFor neither do we say that certain Christian emperors were therefore\nhappy because they ruled a long time, or, dying a peaceful death,\nleft their sons to succeed them in the empire, or subdued the\nenemies of the republic, or were able both to guard against and to\nsuppress the attempt of hostile citizens rising against them. These\nand other gifts or comforts of this sorrowful life even certain\nworshippers of demons have merited to receive, who do not belong to\nthe kingdom of God to which these belong; and this is to be traced to\nthe mercy of God, who would not have those who believe in Him desire\nsuch things as the highest good. But we say that they are happy if\nthey rule justly; if they are not lifted up amid the praises of those\nwho pay them sublime honours, and the obsequiousness of those who\nsalute them with an excessive humility, but remember that they are\nmen; if they make their power the handmaid of His majesty by using\nit for the greatest possible extension of His worship; if they fear,\nlove, worship God; if more than their own they love that kingdom\nin which they are not afraid to have partners; if they are slow to\npunish, ready to pardon; if they apply that punishment as necessary\nto government and defence of the republic, and not in order to\ngratify their own enmity; if they grant pardon, not that iniquity may\ngo unpunished, but with the hope that the transgressor may amend his\nways; if they compensate with the lenity of mercy and the liberality\nof benevolence for whatever severity they may be compelled to\ndecree; if their luxury is as much restrained as it might have been\nunrestrained; if they prefer to govern depraved desires rather than\nany nation whatever; and if they do all these things, not through\nardent desire of empty glory, but through love of eternal felicity,\nnot neglecting to offer to the true God, who is their God, for their\nsins, the sacrifices of humility, contrition, and prayer. Such\nChristian emperors, we say, are happy in the present time by hope,\nand are destined to be so in the enjoyment of the reality itself,\nwhen that which we wait for shall have arrived.\n\n\n   25. _Concerning the prosperity which God granted to the Christian\n                         emperor Constantine._\n\nFor the good God, lest men, who believe that He is to be worshipped\nwith a view to eternal life, should think that no one could attain\nto all this high estate, and to this terrestrial dominion, unless he\nshould be a worshipper of the demons,--supposing that these spirits\nhave great power with respect to such things,--for this reason He\ngave to the Emperor Constantine, who was not a worshipper of demons,\nbut of the true God Himself, such fulness of earthly gifts as no\none would even dare wish for. To him also He granted the honour of\nfounding a city,[222] a companion to the Roman empire, the daughter,\nas it were, of Rome itself, but without any temple or image of the\ndemons. He reigned for a long period as sole emperor, and unaided\nheld and defended the whole Roman world. In conducting and carrying\non wars he was most victorious; in overthrowing tyrants he was most\nsuccessful. He died at a great age, of sickness and old age, and\nleft his sons to succeed him in the empire.[223] But again, lest any\nemperor should become a Christian in order to merit the happiness\nof Constantine, when every one should be a Christian for the sake\nof eternal life, God took away Jovian far sooner than Julian, and\npermitted that Gratian should be slain by the sword of a tyrant. But\nin his case there was far more mitigation of the calamity than in the\ncase of the great Pompey, for he could not be avenged by Cato, whom\nhe had left, as it were, heir to the civil war. But Gratian, though\npious minds require not such consolations, was avenged by Theodosius,\nwhom he had associated with himself in the empire, though he had a\nlittle brother of his own, being more desirous of a faithful alliance\nthan of extensive power.\n\n\n         26. _On the faith and piety of Theodosius Augustus._\n\nAnd on this account, Theodosius not only preserved during the\nlifetime of Gratian that fidelity which was due to him, but also,\nafter his death, he, like a true Christian, took his little brother\nValentinian under his protection, as joint emperor, after he had\nbeen expelled by Maximus, the murderer of his father. He guarded\nhim with paternal affection, though he might without any difficulty\nhave got rid of him, being entirely destitute of all resources,\nhad he been animated with the desire of extensive empire, and not\nwith the ambition of being a benefactor. It was therefore a far\ngreater pleasure to him, when he had adopted the boy, and preserved\nto him his imperial dignity, to console him by his very humanity\nand kindness. Afterwards, when that success was rendering Maximus\nterrible, Theodosius, in the midst of his perplexing anxieties,\nwas not drawn away to follow the suggestions of a sacrilegious and\nunlawful curiosity, but sent to John, whose abode was in the desert\nof Egypt,--for he had learned that this servant of God (whose fame\nwas spreading abroad) was endowed with the gift of prophecy,--and\nfrom him he received assurance of victory. Immediately the slayer\nof the tyrant Maximus, with the deepest feelings of compassion and\nrespect, restored the boy Valentinianus to his share in the empire\nfrom which he had been driven. Valentinianus being soon after\nslain by secret assassination, or by some other plot or accident,\nTheodosius, having again received a response from the prophet, and\nplacing entire confidence in it, marched against the tyrant Eugenius,\nwho had been unlawfully elected to succeed that emperor, and defeated\nhis very powerful army, more by prayer than by the sword. Some\nsoldiers who were at the battle reported to me that all the missiles\nthey were throwing were snatched from their hands by a vehement wind,\nwhich blew from the direction of Theodosius' army upon the enemy; nor\ndid it only drive with greater velocity the darts which were hurled\nagainst them, but also turned back upon their own bodies the darts\nwhich they themselves were throwing. And therefore the poet Claudian,\nalthough an alien from the name of Christ, nevertheless says in his\npraises of him, \"O prince, too much beloved by God, for thee \u00c6olus\npours armed tempests from their caves; for thee the air fights, and\nthe winds with one accord obey thy bugles.\"[224] But the victor, as\nhe had believed and predicted, overthrew the statues of Jupiter,\nwhich had been, as it were, consecrated by I know not what kind of\nrites against him, and set up in the Alps. And the thunderbolts of\nthese statues, which were made of gold, he mirthfully and graciously\npresented to his couriers, who (as the joy of the occasion permitted)\nwere jocularly saying that they would be most happy to be struck\nby such thunderbolts. The sons of his own enemies, whose fathers\nhad been slain not so much by his orders as by the vehemence of\nwar, having fled for refuge to a church, though they were not yet\nChristians, he was anxious, taking advantage of the occasion, to\nbring over to Christianity, and treated them with Christian love.\nNor did he deprive them of their property, but, besides allowing\nthem to retain it, bestowed on them additional honours. He did not\npermit private animosities to affect the treatment of any man after\nthe war. He was not like Cinna, and Marius, and Sylla, and other\nsuch men, who wished not to finish civil wars even when they were\nfinished, but rather grieved that they had arisen at all, than wished\nthat when they were finished they should harm any one. Amid all\nthese events, from the very commencement of his reign, he did not\ncease to help the troubled church against the impious by most just\nand merciful laws, which the heretical Valens, favouring the Arians,\nhad vehemently afflicted. Indeed, he rejoiced more to be a member of\nthis church than he did to be a king upon the earth. The idols of the\nGentiles he everywhere ordered to be overthrown, understanding well\nthat not even terrestrial gifts are placed in the power of demons,\nbut in that of the true God. And what could be more admirable than\nhis religious humility, when, compelled by the urgency of certain of\nhis intimates, he avenged the grievous crime of the Thessalonians,\nwhich at the prayer of the bishops he had promised to pardon, and,\nbeing laid hold of by the discipline of the church, did penance\nin such a way that the sight of his imperial loftiness prostrated\nmade the people who were interceding for him weep more than the\nconsciousness of offence had made them fear it when enraged? These\nand other similar good works, which it would be long to tell, he\ncarried with him from this world of time, where the greatest human\nnobility and loftiness are but vapour. Of these works the reward is\neternal happiness, of which God is the giver, though only to those\nwho are sincerely pious. But all other blessings and privileges of\nthis life, as the world itself, light, air, earth, water, fruits, and\nthe soul of man himself, his body, senses, mind, life, He lavishes on\ngood and bad alike. And among these blessings is also to be reckoned\nthe possession of an empire, whose extent He regulates according to\nthe requirements of His providential government at various times.\nWhence, I see, we must now answer those who, being confuted and\nconvicted by the most manifest proofs, by which it is shown that for\nobtaining these terrestrial things, which are all the foolish desire\nto have, that multitude of false gods is of no use, attempt to assert\nthat the gods are to be worshipped with a view to the interest, not\nof the present life, but of that which is to come after death. For\nas to those who, for the sake of the friendship of this world, are\nwilling to worship vanities, and do not grieve that they are left to\ntheir puerile understandings, I think they have been sufficiently\nanswered in these five books; of which books, when I had published\nthe first three, and they had begun to come into the hands of many,\nI heard that certain persons were preparing against them an answer\nof some kind or other in writing. Then it was told me that they had\nalready written their answer, but were waiting a time when they\ncould publish it without danger. Such persons I would advise not to\ndesire what cannot be of any advantage to them; for it is very easy\nfor a man to seem to himself to have answered arguments, when he has\nonly been unwilling to be silent. For what is more loquacious than\nvanity? And though it be able, if it like, to shout more loudly than\nthe truth, it is not, for all that, more powerful than the truth.\nBut let men consider diligently all the things that we have said,\nand if, perchance, judging without party spirit, they shall clearly\nperceive that they are such things as may rather be shaken than torn\nup by their most impudent garrulity, and, as it were, satirical and\nmimic levity, let them restrain their absurdities, and let them\nchoose rather to be corrected by the wise than to be lauded by the\nfoolish. For if they are waiting an opportunity, not for liberty to\nspeak the truth, but for licence to revile, may not that befall them\nwhich Tully says concerning some one, \"Oh, wretched man! who was at\nliberty to sin?\"[225] Wherefore, whoever he be who deems himself\nhappy because of licence to revile, he would be far happier if that\nwere not allowed him at all; for he might all the while, laying aside\nempty boast, be contradicting those to whose views he is opposed by\nway of free consultation with them, and be listening, as it becomes\nhim, honourably, gravely, candidly, to all that can be adduced by\nthose whom he consults by friendly disputation.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[183] Written in the year 415.\n\n[184] On the application of astrology to national prosperity, and the\nsuccess of certain religions, see Lecky's _Rationalism_, i. 303.\n\n[185] This fact is not recorded in any of the extant works of\nHippocrates or Cicero. Vives supposes it may have found place in\nCicero's book, _De Fato_.\n\n[186] _i.e._ the potter.\n\n[187] _Epist._ 107.\n\n[188] _Odyssey_, xviii. 136, 137.\n\n[189] _De Divinat._ ii.\n\n[190] Ps. xiv. 1\n\n[191] Book iii.\n\n[192] Ps. lxii. 11, 12.\n\n[193] Sallust, _Cat._ vii.\n\n[194] Augustine notes that the name consul is derived from\n_consulere_, and thus signifies a more benign rule than that of a rex\n(from _regere_), or dominus (from _dominari_).\n\n[195] _\u00c6neid_, viii. 646.\n\n[196] _\u00c6neid_, i. 279.\n\n[197] _Ibid._ vi. 847.\n\n[198] Sallust, _in Cat._ c. xi.\n\n[199] Sallust, _in Cat._ c. 54.\n\n[200] 2 Cor. i. 12.\n\n[201] Gal. vi. 4.\n\n[202] Sallust, _in Cat._ c. 52.\n\n[203] Horace, _Epist._ i. 1. 36, 37.\n\n[204] Hor. _Carm._ ii. 2.\n\n[205] _Tusc. Qu\u00e6st._ i. 2.\n\n[206] John v. 44.\n\n[207] John xii. 43.\n\n[208] Matt. x. 33.\n\n[209] Matt. vi. 1.\n\n[210] Matt. v. 16.\n\n[211] Matt. vi. 2.\n\n[212] _Jactantia._\n\n[213] _\u00c6neid_, vi. 820.\n\n[214] Matt. x. 28.\n\n[215] Matt. viii. 22.\n\n[216] Acts ii. 45.\n\n[217] Rom. viii. 18.\n\n[218] Prov. viii. 15.\n\n[219] _\u00c6neid_, vii. 266.\n\n[220] Job xxxiv. 30.\n\n[221] Of the Thrasymene Lake and Cann\u00e6.\n\n[222] Constantinople.\n\n[223] Constantius, Constantine, and Constans.\n\n[224] _Panegyr. de tertio Honorii consulatu._\n\n[225] _Tusc. Quaest._ v. 19.\n\n\n\n\n                              BOOK SIXTH.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  HITHERTO THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVE\n      THAT THE GODS ARE TO BE WORSHIPPED FOR THE SAKE OF TEMPORAL\n      ADVANTAGES, NOW IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT\n      THEY ARE TO BE WORSHIPPED FOR THE SAKE OF ETERNAL LIFE. AUGUSTINE\n      DEVOTES THE FIVE FOLLOWING BOOKS TO THE CONFUTATION OF THIS\n      LATTER BELIEF, AND FIRST OF ALL SHOWS HOW MEAN AN OPINION OF\n      THE GODS WAS HELD BY VARRO HIMSELF, THE MOST ESTEEMED WRITER\n      ON HEATHEN THEOLOGY. OF THIS THEOLOGY AUGUSTINE ADOPTS VARRO'S\n      DIVISION INTO THREE KINDS, MYTHICAL, NATURAL, AND CIVIL; AND AT\n      ONCE DEMONSTRATES THAT NEITHER THE MYTHICAL NOR THE CIVIL CAN\n      CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO THE HAPPINESS OF THE FUTURE LIFE.\n\n\n                               PREFACE.\n\nIn the five former books, I think I have sufficiently disputed\nagainst those who believe that the many false gods, which the\nChristian truth shows to be useless images, or unclean spirits and\npernicious demons, or certainly creatures, not the Creator, are to be\nworshipped for the advantage of this mortal life, and of terrestrial\naffairs, with that rite and service which the Greeks call \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1,\nand which is due to the one true God. And who does not know that,\nin the face of excessive stupidity and obstinacy, neither these\nfive nor any other number of books whatsoever could be enough,\nwhen it is esteemed the glory of vanity to yield to no amount of\nstrength on the side of truth,--certainly to his destruction over\nwhom so heinous a vice tyrannizes? For, notwithstanding all the\nassiduity of the physician who attempts to effect a cure, the disease\nremains unconquered, not through any fault of his, but because of\nthe incurableness of the sick man. But those who thoroughly weigh\nthe things which they read, having understood and considered them,\nwithout any, or with no great and excessive degree of that obstinacy\nwhich belongs to a long-cherished error, will more readily judge\nthat, in the five books already finished, we have done more than\nthe necessity of the question demanded, than that we have given\nit less discussion than it required. And they cannot have doubted\nbut that all the hatred which the ignorant attempt to bring upon\nthe Christian religion on account of the disasters of this life,\nand the destruction and change which befall terrestrial things,\nwhilst the learned do not merely dissimulate, but encourage that\nhatred, contrary to their own consciences, being possessed by a mad\nimpiety;--they cannot have doubted, I say, but that this hatred\nis devoid of right reflection and reason, and full of most light\ntemerity, and most pernicious animosity.\n\n\n   1. _Of those who maintain that they worship the gods not for the\n              sake of temporal, but eternal advantages._\n\nNow, as, in the next place (as the promised order demands), those are\nto be refuted and taught who contend that the gods of the nations,\nwhich the Christian truth destroys, are to be worshipped not on account\nof this life, but on account of that which is to be after death, I\nshall do well to commence my disputation with the truthful oracle of\nthe holy psalm, \"Blessed is the man whose hope is the Lord God, and who\nrespecteth not Vanities and lying follies.\"[226] Nevertheless, in all\nvanities and lying follies the philosophers are to be listened to with\nfar more toleration, who have repudiated those opinions and errors of\nthe people; for the people set up images to the deities, and either\nfeigned concerning those whom they call immortal gods many false and\nunworthy things, or believed them, already feigned, and, when believed,\nmixed them up with their worship and sacred rites.\n\nWith those men who, though not by free avowal of their convictions, do\nstill testify that they disapprove of those things by their muttering\ndisapprobation during disputations on the subject, it may not be\nvery far amiss to discuss the following question: Whether, for the\nsake of the life which is to be after death, we ought to worship,\nnot the one God, who made all creatures spiritual and corporeal, but\nthose many gods who, as some of these philosophers hold, were made by\nthat one God, and placed by Him in their respective sublime spheres,\nand are therefore considered more excellent and more noble than all\nthe others?[227] But who will assert that it must be affirmed and\ncontended that those gods, certain of whom I have mentioned in the\nfourth book,[228] to whom are distributed, each to each, the charges\nof minute things, do bestow eternal life? But will those most skilled\nand most acute men, who glory in having written for the great benefit\nof men, to teach on what account each god is to be worshipped, and\nwhat is to be sought from each, lest with most disgraceful absurdity,\nsuch as a mimic is wont for the sake of merriment to exhibit, water\nshould be sought from Liber, wine from the Lymphs,--will those men\nindeed affirm to any man supplicating the immortal gods, that when he\nshall have asked wine from the Lymphs, and they shall have answered\nhim, \"We have water, seek wine from Liber,\" he may rightly say, \"If\nye have not wine, at least give me eternal life?\" What more monstrous\nthan this absurdity? Will not these Lymphs,--for they are wont to be\nvery easily made laugh,[229]--laughing loudly (if they do not attempt\nto deceive like demons), answer the suppliant, \"O man, dost thou think\nthat we have life (_vitam_) in our power, who thou hearest have not\neven the vine (_vitem_)?\" It is therefore most impudent folly to seek\nand hope for eternal life from such gods as are asserted so to preside\nover the separate minute concernments of this most sorrowful and short\nlife, and whatever is useful for supporting and propping it, as that\nif anything which is under the care and power of one be sought from\nanother, it is so incongruous and absurd that it appears very like to\nmimic drollery,--which, when it is done by mimics knowing what they are\ndoing, is deservedly laughed at in the theatre, but when it is done by\nfoolish persons, who do not know better, is more deservedly ridiculed\nin the world. Wherefore, as concerns those gods which the states have\nestablished, it has been cleverly invented and handed down to memory\nby learned men, what god or goddess is to be supplicated in relation\nto every particular thing,--what, for instance, is to be sought from\nLiber, what from the Lymphs, what from Vulcan, and so of all the rest,\nsome of whom I have mentioned in the fourth book, and some I have\nthought right to omit. Further, if it is an error to seek wine from\nCeres, bread from Liber, water from Vulcan, fire from the Lymphs, how\nmuch greater absurdity ought it to be thought, if supplication be made\nto any one of these for eternal life?\n\nWherefore, if, when we were inquiring what gods or goddesses are\nto be believed to be able to confer earthly kingdoms upon men, all\nthings having been discussed, it was shown to be very far from the\ntruth to think that even terrestrial kingdoms are established by any\nof those many false deities, is it not most insane impiety to believe\nthat eternal life, which is, without any doubt or comparison, to be\npreferred to all terrestrial kingdoms, can be given to any one by any\nof these gods? For the reason why such gods seemed to us not to be\nable to give even an earthly kingdom, was not because they are very\ngreat and exalted, whilst that is something small and abject, which\nthey, in their so great sublimity, would not condescend to care for,\nbut because, however deservedly any one may, in consideration of\nhuman frailty, despise the falling pinnacles of an earthly kingdom,\nthese gods have presented such an appearance as to seem most unworthy\nto have the granting and preserving of even those entrusted to them;\nand consequently, if (as we have taught in the two last books of our\nwork, where this matter is treated of) no god out of all that crowd,\neither belonging to, as it were, the plebeian or to the noble gods,\nis fit to give mortal kingdoms to mortals, how much less is he able\nto make immortals of mortals?\n\nAnd more than this, if, according to the opinion of those with whom we\nare now arguing, the gods are to be worshipped, not on account of the\npresent life, but of that which is to be after death, then, certainly,\nthey are not to be worshipped on account of those particular things\nwhich are distributed and portioned out (not by any law of rational\ntruth, but by mere vain conjecture) to the power of such gods, as\nthey believe they ought to be worshipped, who contend that their\nworship is necessary for all the desirable things of this mortal life,\nagainst whom I have disputed sufficiently, as far as I was able, in\nthe five preceding books. These things being so, if the age itself\nof those who worshipped the goddess Juventas should be characterized\nby remarkable vigour, whilst her despisers should either die within\nthe years of youth, or should, during that period, grow cold as with\nthe torpor of old age; if bearded Fortuna should cover the cheeks of\nher worshippers more handsomely and more gracefully than all others,\nwhilst we should see those by whom she was despised either altogether\nbeardless or ill-bearded; even then we should most rightly say, that\nthus far these several gods had power, limited in some way by their\nfunctions, and that, consequently, neither ought eternal life to be\nsought from Juventas, who could not give a beard, nor ought any good\nthing after this life to be expected from Fortuna Barbata, who has\nno power even in this life to give the age itself at which the beard\ngrows. But now, when their worship is necessary not even on account of\nthose very things which they think are subjected to their power,--for\nmany worshippers of the goddess Juventas have not been at all vigorous\nat that age, and many who do not worship her rejoice in youthful\nstrength; and also many suppliants of Fortuna Barbata have either not\nbeen able to attain to any beard at all, not even an ugly one, although\nthey who adore her in order to obtain a beard are ridiculed by her\nbearded despisers,--is the human heart really so foolish as to believe\nthat that worship of the gods, which it acknowledges to be vain and\nridiculous with respect to those very temporal and swiftly passing\ngifts, over each of which one of these gods is said to preside, is\nfruitful in results with respect to eternal life? And that they are\nable to give eternal life has not been affirmed even by those who, that\nthey might be worshipped by the silly populace, distributed in minute\ndivision among them these temporal occupations, that none of them might\nsit idle; for they had supposed the existence of an exceedingly great\nnumber.\n\n\n  2. _What we are to believe that Varro thought concerning the gods\n      of the nations, whose various kinds and sacred rites he has\n      shown to be such that he would have acted more reverently\n      towards them had he been altogether silent concerning them._\n\nWho has investigated those things more carefully than Marcus Varro?\nWho has discovered them more learnedly? Who has considered them more\nattentively? Who has distinguished them more acutely? Who has written\nabout them more diligently and more fully?--who, though he is less\npleasing in his eloquence, is nevertheless so full of instruction\nand wisdom, that in all the erudition which we call secular, but\nthey liberal, he will teach the student of things as much as Cicero\ndelights the student of words. And even Tully himself renders him\nsuch testimony, as to say in his Academic books that he had held that\ndisputation which is there carried on with Marcus Varro, \"a man,\" he\nadds, \"unquestionably the acutest of all men, and, without any doubt,\nthe most learned.\"[230] He does not say the most eloquent or the most\nfluent, for in reality he was very deficient in this faculty, but he\nsays, \"of all men the most acute.\" And in those books,--that is, the\nAcademic,--where he contends that all things are to be doubted, he\nadds of him, \"without any doubt the most learned.\" In truth, he was\nso certain concerning this thing, that he laid aside that doubt which\nhe is wont to have recourse to in all things, as if, when about to\ndispute in favour of the doubt of the Academics, he had, with respect\nto this one thing, forgotten that he was an Academic. But in the first\nbook, when he extols the literary works of the same Varro, he says,\n\"Us straying and wandering in our own city like strangers, thy books,\nas it were, brought home, that at length we might come to know of who\nwe were and where we were. Thou hast opened up to us the age of the\ncountry, the distribution of seasons, the laws of sacred things, and of\nthe priests; thou hast opened up to us domestic and public discipline;\nthou hast pointed out to us the proper places for religious ceremonies,\nand hast informed us concerning sacred places. Thou hast shown us the\nnames, kinds, offices, causes of all divine and human things.\"[231]\n\nThis man, then, of so distinguished and excellent acquirements, and,\nas Terentian briefly says of him in a most elegant verse,\n\n          \"Varro, a man universally informed,\"[232]\n\nwho read so much that we wonder when he had time to write, wrote so\nmuch that we can scarcely believe any one could have read it all,--this\nman, I say, so great in talent, so great in learning, had he been an\nopposer and destroyer of the so-called divine things of which he wrote,\nand had he said that they pertained to superstition rather than to\nreligion, might perhaps, even in that case, not have written so many\nthings which are ridiculous, contemptible, detestable. But when he so\nworshipped these same gods, and so vindicated their worship, as to say,\nin that same literary work of his, that he was afraid lest they should\nperish, not by an assault by enemies, but by the negligence of the\ncitizens, and that from this ignominy they are being delivered by him,\nand are being laid up and preserved in the memory of the good by means\nof such books, with a zeal far more beneficial than that through which\nMetellus is declared to have rescued the sacred things of Vesta from\nthe flames, and \u00c6neas to have rescued the Penates from the burning of\nTroy; and when he, nevertheless, gives forth such things to be read by\nsucceeding ages as are deservedly judged by wise and unwise to be unfit\nto be read, and to be most hostile to the truth of religion; what ought\nwe to think but that a most acute and learned man,--not, however, made\nfree by the Holy Spirit,--was overpowered by the custom and laws of his\nstate, and, not being able to be silent about those things by which he\nwas influenced, spoke of them under pretence of commending religion?\n\n\n   3. _Varro's distribution of his book which he composed concerning\n             the antiquities of human and divine things._\n\nHe wrote forty-one books of antiquities. These he divided into human\nand divine things. Twenty-five he devoted to human things, sixteen\nto divine things; following this plan in that division,--namely,\nto give six books to each of the four divisions of human things.\nFor he directs his attention to these considerations: who perform,\nwhere they perform, when they perform, what they perform. Therefore\nin the first six books he wrote concerning men; in the second six,\nconcerning places; in the third six, concerning times; in the fourth\nand last six, concerning things. Four times six, however, make only\ntwenty-four. But he placed at the head of them one separate work,\nwhich spoke of all these things conjointly.\n\nIn divine things, the same order he preserved throughout, as far as\nconcerns those things which are performed to the gods. For sacred\nthings are performed by men in places and times. These four things\nI have mentioned he embraced in twelve books, allotting three to\neach. For he wrote the first three concerning men, the following\nthree concerning places, the third three concerning times, and the\nfourth three concerning sacred rites,--showing who should perform,\nwhere they should perform, when they should perform, what they should\nperform, with most subtle distinction. But because it was necessary\nto say--and that especially was expected--to whom they should perform\nsacred rites, he wrote concerning the gods themselves the last three\nbooks; and these five times three made fifteen. But they are in all,\nas we have said, sixteen. For he put also at the beginning of these\none distinct book, speaking by way of introduction of all which\nfollows; which being finished, he proceeded to subdivide the first\nthree in that fivefold distribution which pertain to men, making\nthe first concerning high priests, the second concerning augurs,\nthe third concerning the fifteen men presiding over the sacred\nceremonies.[233] The second three he made concerning places, speaking\nin one of them concerning their chapels, in the second concerning\ntheir temples, and in the third concerning religious places. The\nnext three which follow these, and pertain to times,--that is, to\nfestival days,--he distributed so as to make one concerning holidays,\nthe other concerning the circus games, and the third concerning\nscenic plays. Of the fourth three, pertaining to sacred things, he\ndevoted one to consecrations, another to private, the last to public,\nsacred rites. In the three which remain, the gods themselves follow\nthis pompous train, as it were, for whom all this culture has been\nexpended. In the first book are the certain gods, in the second the\nuncertain, in the third, and last of all, the chief and select gods.\n\n\n  4. _That from the disputation of Varro, it follows that the\n      worshippers of the gods regard human things as more ancient\n      than divine things._\n\nIn this whole series of most beautiful and most subtle distributions\nand distinctions, it will most easily appear evident from the things\nwe have said already, and from what is to be said hereafter, to any\nman who is not, in the obstinacy of his heart, an enemy to himself,\nthat it is vain to seek and to hope for, and even most impudent to\nwish for eternal life. For these institutions are either the work\nof men, or of demons,--not of those whom they call good demons,\nbut, to speak more plainly, of unclean, and, without controversy,\nmalign spirits, who with wonderful slyness and secretness suggest to\nthe thoughts of the impious, and sometimes openly present to their\nunderstandings, noxious opinions, by which the human mind grows more\nand more foolish, and becomes unable to adapt itself to and abide in\nthe immutable and eternal truth, and seek to confirm these opinions\nby every kind of fallacious attestation in their power. This very\nsame Varro testifies that he wrote first concerning human things,\nbut afterwards concerning divine things, because the states existed\nfirst, and afterward these things were instituted by them. But the\ntrue religion was not instituted by any earthly state, but plainly it\nestablished the celestial city. It, however, is inspired and taught\nby the true God, the giver of eternal life to His true worshippers.\n\nThe following is the reason Varro gives when he confesses that he\nhad written first concerning human things, and afterwards of divine\nthings, because these divine things were instituted by men:--\"As the\npainter is before the painted tablet, the mason before the edifice,\nso states are before those things which are instituted by states.\"\nBut he says that he would have written first concerning the gods,\nafterwards concerning men, if he had been writing concerning the\nwhole nature of the gods,--as if he were really writing concerning\nsome portion of, and not all, the nature of the gods; or as if,\nindeed, some portion of, though not all, the nature of the gods ought\nnot to be put before that of men. How, then, comes it that in those\nthree last books, when he is diligently explaining the certain,\nuncertain, and select gods, he seems to pass over no portion of the\nnature of the gods? Why, then, does he say, \"If we had been writing\non the whole nature of the gods, we would first have finished the\ndivine things before we touched the human?\" For he either writes\nconcerning the whole nature of the gods, or concerning some portion\nof it, or concerning no part of it at all. If concerning it all, it\nis certainly to be put before human things; if concerning some part\nof it, why should it not, from the very nature of the case, precede\nhuman things? Is not even some part of the gods to be preferred\nto the whole of humanity? But if it is too much to prefer a part\nof the divine to all human things, that part is certainly worthy\nto be preferred to the Romans at least. For he writes the books\nconcerning human things, not with reference to the whole world, but\nonly to Rome; which books he says he had properly placed, in the\norder of writing, before the books on divine things, like a painter\nbefore the painted tablet, or a mason before the building, most\nopenly confessing that, as a picture or a structure, even these\ndivine things were instituted by men. There remains only the third\nsupposition, that he is to be understood to have written concerning\nno divine nature, but that he did not wish to say this openly, but\nleft it to the intelligent to infer; for when one says \"not all,\"\nusage understands that to mean \"some,\" but it _may_ be understood\nas meaning _none_, because that which is _none_ is neither all nor\nsome. In fact, as he himself says, if he had been writing concerning\nall the nature of the gods, its due place would have been before\nhuman things in the order of writing. But, as the truth declares,\neven though Varro is silent, the divine nature should have taken\nprecedence of Roman things, though it were not _all_, but only\n_some_. But it is properly put after, therefore it is _none_. His\narrangement, therefore, was due, not to a desire to give human things\npriority to divine things, but to his unwillingness to prefer false\nthings to true. For in what he wrote on human things, he followed\nthe history of affairs; but in what he wrote concerning those things\nwhich they call divine, what else did he follow but mere conjectures\nabout vain things? This, doubtless, is what, in a subtle manner, he\nwished to signify; not only writing concerning divine things after\nthe human, but even giving a reason why he did so; for if he had\nsuppressed this, some, perchance, would have defended his doing so\nin one way, and some in another. But in that very reason he has\nrendered, he has left nothing for men to conjecture at will, and has\nsufficiently proved that he preferred men to the institutions of men,\nnot the nature of men to the nature of the gods. Thus he confessed\nthat, in writing the books concerning divine things, he did not write\nconcerning the truth which belongs to nature, but the falseness which\nbelongs to error; which he has elsewhere expressed more openly (as\nI have mentioned in the fourth book[234]), saying that, had he been\nfounding a new city himself, he would have written according to the\norder of nature; but as he had only found an old one, he could not\nbut follow its custom.\n\n\n    5. _Concerning the three kinds of theology according to Varro,\n      namely, one fabulous, the other natural, the third civil._\n\nNow what are we to say of this proposition of his, namely, that there\nare three kinds of theology, that is, of the account which is given\nof the gods; and of these, the one is called mythical, the other\nphysical, and the third civil? Did the Latin usage permit, we should\ncall the kind which he has placed first in order _fabular_,[235] but\nlet us call it _fabulous_,[236] for mythical is derived from the Greek\n\u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, a fable; but that the second should be called _natural_, the\nusage of speech now admits; the third he himself has designated in\nLatin, calling it _civil_.[237] Then he says, \"they call that kind\n_mythical_ which the poets chiefly use; _physical_, that which the\nphilosophers use; _civil_, that which the people use. As to the first I\nhave mentioned,\" says he, \"in it are many fictions, which are contrary\nto the dignity and nature of the immortals. For we find in it that one\ngod has been born from the head, another from the thigh, another from\ndrops of blood; also, in this we find that gods have stolen, committed\nadultery, served men; in a word, in this all manner of things are\nattributed to the gods, such as may befall, not merely any man, but\neven the most contemptible man.\" He certainly, where he could, where he\ndared, where he thought he could do it with impunity, has manifested,\nwithout any of the haziness of ambiguity, how great injury was done\nto the nature of the gods by lying fables; for he was speaking, not\nconcerning natural theology, not concerning civil, but concerning\nfabulous theology, which he thought he could freely find fault with.\n\nLet us see, now, what he says concerning the second kind. \"The second\nkind which I have explained,\" he says, \"is that concerning which\nphilosophers have left many books, in which they treat such questions\nas these: what gods there are, where they are, of what kind and\ncharacter they are, since what time they have existed, or if they\nhave existed from eternity; whether they are of fire, as Heraclitus\nbelieves; or of number, as Pythagoras; or of atoms, as Epicurus says;\nand other such things, which men's ears can more easily hear inside\nthe walls of a school than outside in the Forum.\" He finds fault\nwith nothing in this kind of theology which they call _physical_,\nand which belongs to philosophers, except that he has related their\ncontroversies among themselves, through which there has arisen a\nmultitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removed this kind\nfrom the Forum, that is, from the populace, but he has shut it up in\nschools. But that first kind, most false and most base, he has not\nremoved from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and\namong them even those of the Romans, that are not able to bear what\nthe philosophers dispute concerning the gods! But when the poets sing\nand stage-players act such things as are derogatory to the dignity\nand the nature of the immortals, such as may befall not a man merely,\nbut the most contemptible man, they not only bear, but willingly\nlisten to. Nor is this all, but they even consider that these things\nplease the gods, and that they are propitiated by them.\n\nBut some one may say, Let us distinguish these two kinds of theology,\nthe mythical and the physical,--that is, the fabulous and the\nnatural,--from this civil kind about which we are now speaking.\nAnticipating this, he himself has distinguished them. Let us see\nnow how he explains the civil theology itself. I see, indeed,\nwhy it should be distinguished as fabulous, even because it is\nfalse, because it is base, because it is unworthy. But to wish to\ndistinguish the natural from the civil, what else is that but to\nconfess that the civil itself is false? For if that be natural, what\nfault has it that it should be excluded? And if this which is called\ncivil be not natural, what merit has it that it should be admitted?\nThis, in truth, is the cause why he wrote first concerning human\nthings, and afterwards concerning divine things; since in divine\nthings he did not follow nature, but the institution of men. Let us\nlook at this civil theology of his. \"The third kind,\" says he, \"is\nthat which citizens in cities, and especially the priests, ought to\nknow and to administer. From it is to be known what god each one\nmay suitably worship, what sacred rites and sacrifices each one may\nsuitably perform.\" Let us still attend to what follows. \"The first\ntheology,\" he says, \"is especially adapted to the theatre, the second\nto the world, the third to the city.\" Who does not see to which he\ngives the palm? Certainly to the second, which he said above is that\nof the philosophers. For he testifies that this pertains to the\nworld, than which they think there is nothing better. But those two\ntheologies, the first and the third,--to wit, those of the theatre\nand of the city,--has he distinguished them or united them? For\nalthough we see that the city is in the world, we do not see that it\nfollows that any things belonging to the city pertain to the world.\nFor it is possible that such things may be worshipped and believed in\nthe city, according to false opinions, as have no existence either\nin the world or out of it. But where is the theatre but in the city?\nWho instituted the theatre but the state? For what purpose did it\nconstitute it but for scenic plays? And to what class of things do\nscenic plays belong but to those divine things concerning which these\nbooks of Varro's are written with so much ability?\n\n\n    6. _Concerning the mythic, that is, the fabulous, theology, and\n                      the civil, against Varro._\n\nO Marcus Varro! thou art the most acute, and without doubt the most\nlearned, but still a man, not God,--now lifted up by the Spirit of\nGod to see and to announce divine things, thou seest, indeed, that\ndivine things are to be separated from human trifles and lies, but\nthou fearest to offend those most corrupt opinions of the populace,\nand their customs in public superstitions, which thou thyself, when\nthou considerest them on all sides, perceivest, and all your literature\nloudly pronounces to be abhorrent from the nature of the gods, even\nof such gods as the frailty of the human mind supposes to exist in\nthe elements of this world. What can the most excellent human talent\ndo here? What can human learning, though manifold, avail thee in\nthis perplexity? Thou desirest to worship the natural gods; thou art\ncompelled to worship the civil. Thou hast found some of the gods to be\nfabulous, on whom thou vomitest forth very freely what thou thinkest,\nand, whether thou willest or not, thou wettest therewith even the civil\ngods. Thou sayest, forsooth, that the fabulous are adapted to the\ntheatre, the natural to the world, and the civil to the city; though\nthe world is a divine work, but cities and theatres are the works of\nmen, and though the gods who are laughed at in the theatre are not\nother than those who are adored in the temples; and ye do not exhibit\ngames in honour of other gods than those to whom ye immolate victims.\nHow much more freely and more subtly wouldst thou have decided these\nhadst thou said that some gods are natural, others established by men;\nand concerning those who have been so established, the literature of\nthe poets gives one account, and that of the priests another,--both\nof which are, nevertheless, so friendly the one to the other, through\nfellowship in falsehood, that they are both pleasing to the demons, to\nwhom the doctrine of the truth is hostile.\n\nThat theology, therefore, which they call natural, being put aside\nfor a moment, as it is afterwards to be discussed, we ask if any one\nis really content to seek a hope for eternal life from poetical,\ntheatrical, scenic gods? Perish the thought! The true God avert so\nwild and sacrilegious a madness! What, is eternal life to be asked\nfrom those gods whom these things pleased, and whom these things\npropitiate, in which their own crimes are represented? No one, as I\nthink, has arrived at such a pitch of headlong and furious impiety.\nSo then, neither by the fabulous nor by the civil theology does any\none obtain eternal life. For the one sows base things concerning\nthe gods by feigning them, the other reaps by cherishing them; the\none scatters lies, the other gathers them together; the one pursues\ndivine things with false crimes, the other incorporates among divine\nthings the plays which are made up of these crimes; the one sounds\nabroad in human songs impious fictions concerning the gods, the other\nconsecrates these for the festivities of the gods themselves; the\none sings the misdeeds and crimes of the gods, the other loves them;\nthe one gives forth or feigns, the other either attests the true or\ndelights in the false. Both are base; both are damnable. But the one\nwhich is theatrical teaches public abomination, and that one which\nis of the city adorns itself with that abomination. Shall eternal\nlife be hoped for from these, by which this short and temporal life\nis polluted? Does the society of wicked men pollute our life if they\ninsinuate themselves into our affections, and win our assent? and\ndoes not the society of demons pollute the life, who are worshipped\nwith their own crimes?--if with true crimes, how wicked the demons!\nif with false, how wicked the worship!\n\nWhen we say these things, it may perchance seem to some one who is\nvery ignorant of these matters that only those things concerning\nthe gods which are sung in the songs of the poets and acted on\nthe stage are unworthy of the divine majesty, and ridiculous, and\ntoo detestable to be celebrated, whilst those sacred things which\nnot stage-players but priests perform are pure and free from all\nunseemliness. Had this been so, never would any one have thought that\nthese theatrical abominations should be celebrated in their honour,\nnever would the gods themselves have ordered them to be performed to\nthem. But men are in nowise ashamed to perform these things in the\ntheatres, because similar things are carried on in the temples. In\nshort, when the fore-mentioned author attempted to distinguish the\ncivil theology from the fabulous and natural, as a sort of third and\ndistinct kind, he wished it to be understood to be rather tempered by\nboth than separated from either. For he says that those things which\nthe poets write are less than the people ought to follow, whilst what\nthe philosophers say is more than it is expedient for the people to\npry into. \"Which,\" says he, \"differ in such a way, that nevertheless\nnot a few things from both of them have been taken to the account\nof the civil theology; wherefore we will indicate what the civil\ntheology has in common with that of the poet, though it ought to be\nmore closely connected with the theology of philosophers.\" Civil\ntheology is therefore not quite disconnected from that of the poets.\nNevertheless, in another place, concerning the generations of the\ngods, he says that the people are more inclined toward the poets\nthan toward the physical theologists. For in this place he said what\nought to be done; in that other place, what was really done. He said\nthat the latter had written for the sake of utility, but the poets\nfor the sake of amusement. And hence the things from the poets'\nwritings, which the people ought not to follow, are the crimes of the\ngods; which, nevertheless, amuse both the people and the gods. For,\nfor amusement's sake, he says, the poets write, and not for that of\nutility; nevertheless they write such things as the gods will desire,\nand the people perform.\n\n\n     7. _Concerning the likeness and agreement of the fabulous and\n                          civil theologies._\n\nThat theology, therefore, which is fabulous, theatrical, scenic,\nand full of all baseness and unseemliness, is taken up into the\ncivil theology; and part of that theology, which in its totality\nis deservedly judged to be worthy of reprobation and rejection, is\npronounced worthy to be cultivated and observed;--not at all an\nincongruous part, as I have undertaken to show, and one which, being\nalien to the whole body, was unsuitably attached to and suspended\nfrom it, but a part entirely congruous with, and most harmoniously\nfitted to the rest, as a member of the same body. For what else do\nthose images, forms, ages, sexes, characteristics of the gods show?\nIf the poets have Jupiter with a beard, and Mercury beardless, have\nnot the priests the same? Is the Priapus of the priests less obscene\nthan the Priapus of the players? Does he receive the adoration of\nworshippers in a different form from that in which he moves about\nthe stage for the amusement of spectators? Is not Saturn old and\nApollo young in the shrines where their images stand, as well as when\nrepresented by actor's masks? Why are Forculus, who presides over\ndoors, and Limentinus, who presides over thresholds and lintels, male\ngods, and Cardea between them feminine, who presides over hinges?\nAre not those things found in books on divine things, which grave\npoets have deemed unworthy of their verses? Does the Diana of the\ntheatre carry arms, whilst the Diana of the city is simply a virgin?\nIs the stage Apollo a lyrist, but the Delphic Apollo ignorant of this\nart? But these things are decent compared with the more shameful\nthings. What was thought of Jupiter himself by those who placed his\nwet nurse in the Capitol? Did they not bear witness to Euhemerus,\nwho, not with the garrulity of a fable-teller, but with the gravity\nof an historian who had diligently investigated the matter, wrote\nthat all such gods had been men and mortals? And they who appointed\nthe Epulones as parasites at the table of Jupiter, what else did\nthey wish for but mimic sacred rites? For if any mimic had said\nthat parasites of Jupiter were made use of at his table, he would\nassuredly have appeared to be seeking to call forth laughter. Varro\nsaid it,--not when he was mocking, but when he was commending the\ngods did he say it. His books on divine, not on human, things testify\nthat he wrote this,--not where he set forth the scenic games, but\nwhere he explained the Capitoline laws. In a word, he is conquered,\nand confesses that, as they made the gods with a human form, so they\nbelieved that they are delighted with human pleasures.\n\nFor also malign spirits were not so wanting to their own business as\nnot to confirm noxious opinions in the minds of men by converting\nthem into sport. Whence also is that story about the sacristan of\nHercules, which says that, having nothing to do, he took to playing\nat dice as a pastime, throwing them alternately with the one hand\nfor Hercules, with the other for himself, with this understanding,\nthat if he should win, he should from the funds of the temple prepare\nhimself a supper, and hire a mistress; but if Hercules should win the\ngame, he himself should, at his own expense, provide the same for the\npleasure of Hercules. Then, when he had been beaten by himself, as\nthough by Hercules, he gave to the god Hercules the supper he owed\nhim, and also the most noble harlot Larentina. But she, having fallen\nasleep in the temple, dreamed that Hercules had had intercourse with\nher, and had said to her that she would find her payment with the\nyouth whom she should first meet on leaving the temple, and that she\nwas to believe this to be paid to her by Hercules. And so the first\nyouth that met her on going out was the wealthy Tarutius, who kept\nher a long time, and when he died left her his heir. She, having\nobtained a most ample fortune, that she should not seem ungrateful\nfor the divine hire, in her turn made the Roman people her heir,\nwhich she thought to be most acceptable to the deities; and, having\ndisappeared, the will was found. By which meritorious conduct they\nsay that she gained divine honours.\n\nNow had these things been feigned by the poets and acted by the\nmimics, they would without any doubt have been said to pertain to the\nfabulous theology, and would have been judged worthy to be separated\nfrom the dignity of the civil theology. But when these shameful\nthings,--not of the poets, but of the people; not of the mimics, but\nof the sacred things; not of the theatres, but of the temples, that\nis, not of the fabulous, but of the civil theology,--are reported\nby so great an author, not in vain do the actors represent with\ntheatrical art the baseness of the gods, which is so great; but\nsurely in vain do the priests attempt, by rites called sacred, to\nrepresent their nobleness of character, which has no existence. There\nare sacred rites of Juno; and these are celebrated in her beloved\nisland, Samos, where she was given in marriage to Jupiter. There are\nsacred rites of Ceres, in which Proserpine is sought for, having\nbeen carried off by Pluto. There are sacred rites Venus, in which,\nher beloved Adonis being slain by a boar's tooth, the lovely youth\nis lamented. There are sacred rites of the mother of the gods, in\nwhich the beautiful youth Atys, loved by her, and castrated by her\nthrough a woman's jealousy, is deplored by men who have suffered\nthe like calamity, whom they call Galli. Since, then, these things\nare more unseemly than all scenic abomination, why is it that they\nstrive to separate, as it were, the fabulous fictions of the poet\nconcerning the gods, as, forsooth, pertaining to the theatre, from\nthe civil theology which they wish to belong to the city, as though\nthey were separating from noble and worthy things, things unworthy\nand base? Wherefore there is more reason to thank the stage-actors,\nwho have spared the eyes of men, and have not laid bare by theatrical\nexhibition all the things which are hid by the walls of the temples.\nWhat good is to be thought of their sacred rites which are concealed\nin darkness, when those which are brought forth into the light are\nso detestable? And certainly they themselves have seen what they\ntransact in secret through the agency of mutilated and effeminate\nmen. Yet they have _not_ been able to conceal those same men\nmiserably and vilely enervated and corrupted. Let them persuade\nwhom they can that they transact anything holy through such men,\nwho, they cannot deny, are numbered, and live among their sacred\nthings. We know not what they transact, but we know through whom they\ntransact; for we know what things are transacted on the stage, where\nnever, even in a chorus of harlots, hath one who is mutilated or an\neffeminate appeared. And, nevertheless, even these things are acted\nby vile and infamous characters; for, indeed, they ought not to be\nacted by men of good character. What, then, are those sacred rites,\nfor the performance of which holiness has chosen such men as not even\nthe obscenity of the stage has admitted?\n\n\n  8. _Concerning the interpretations, consisting of natural\n      explanations, which the pagan teachers attempt to show for\n      their gods._\n\nBut all these things, they say, have certain physical, that is,\nnatural interpretations, showing their natural meaning; as though\nin this disputation we were seeking physics and not theology, which\nis the account, not of nature, but of God. For although He who is\nthe true God is God, not by opinion, but by nature, nevertheless\nall nature is not God; for there is certainly a nature of man, of a\nbeast, of a tree, of a stone,--none of which is God. For if, when the\nquestion is concerning the mother of the gods, that from which the\nwhole system of interpretation starts certainly is, that the mother\nof the gods is the earth, why do we make further inquiry? why do we\ncarry our investigation through all the rest of it? What can more\nmanifestly favour them who say that all those gods were men? For they\nare earth-born in the sense that the earth is their mother. But in\nthe true theology the earth is the work, not the mother, of God. But\nin whatever way their sacred rites may be interpreted, and, whatever\nreference they may have to the nature of things, it is not according\nto nature, but contrary to nature, that men should be effeminates.\nThis disease, this crime, this abomination, has a recognised place\namong those sacred things, though even depraved men will scarcely\nbe compelled by torments to confess they are guilty of it. Again,\nif these sacred rites, which are proved to be fouler than scenic\nabominations, are excused and justified on the ground that they have\ntheir own interpretations, by which they are shown to symbolize the\nnature of things, why are not the poetical things in like manner\nexcused and justified? For many have interpreted even these in like\nfashion, to such a degree that even that which they say is the most\nmonstrous and most horrible,--namely, that Saturn devoured his own\nchildren,--has been interpreted by some of them to mean that length\nof time, which is signified by the name of Saturn, consumes whatever\nit begets; or that, as the same Varro thinks, Saturn belongs to seeds\nwhich fall back again into the earth from whence they spring. And so\none interprets it in one way, and one in another. And the same is to\nbe said of all the rest of this theology.\n\nAnd, nevertheless, it is called the fabulous theology, and is\ncensured, cast off, rejected, together with all such interpretations\nbelonging to it. And not only by the natural theology, which is that\nof the philosophers, but also by this civil theology, concerning\nwhich we are speaking, which is asserted to pertain to cities and\npeoples, it is judged worthy of repudiation, because it has invented\nunworthy things concerning the gods. Of which, I wot, this is\nthe secret: that those most acute and learned men, by whom those\nthings were written, understood that both theologies ought to be\nrejected,--to wit, both that fabulous and this civil one,--but the\nformer they dared to reject, the latter they dared not; the former\nthey set forth to be censured, the latter they showed to be very\nlike it; not that it might be chosen to be held in preference to the\nother, but that it might be understood to be worthy of being rejected\ntogether with it. And thus, without danger to those who feared to\ncensure the civil theology, both of them being brought into contempt,\nthat theology which they call natural might find a place in better\ndisposed minds; for the civil and the fabulous are both fabulous and\nboth civil. He who shall wisely inspect the vanities and obscenities\nof both will find that they are both fabulous; and he who shall\ndirect his attention to the scenic plays pertaining to the fabulous\ntheology in the festivals of the civil gods, and in the divine rites\nof the cities, will find they are both civil. How, then, can the\npower of giving eternal life be attributed to any of those gods whose\nown images and sacred rites convict them of being most like to the\nfabulous gods, which are most openly reprobated, in forms, ages, sex,\ncharacteristics, marriages, generations, rites; in all which things\nthey are understood either to have been men, and to have had their\nsacred rites and solemnities instituted in their honour according\nto the life or death of each of them, the demons suggesting and\nconfirming this error, or certainly most foul spirits, who, taking\nadvantage of some occasion or other, have stolen into the minds of\nmen to deceive them?\n\n\n           9. _Concerning the special offices of the gods._\n\nAnd as to those very offices of the gods, so meanly and so minutely\nportioned out, so that they say that they ought to be supplicated,\neach one according to his special function,--about which we have\nspoken much already, though not all that is to be said concerning\nit,--are they not more consistent with mimic buffoonery than divine\nmajesty? If any one should use two nurses for his infant, one of whom\nshould give nothing but food, the other nothing but drink, as these\nmake use of two goddesses for this purpose, Educa and Potina, he\nshould certainly seem to be foolish, and to do in his house a thing\nworthy of a mimic. They would have Liber to have been named from\n\"liberation,\" because through him males at the time of copulation\nare liberated by the emission of the seed. They also say that Libera\n(the same in their opinion as Venus) exercises the same function in\nthe case of women, because they say that they also emit seed; and\nthey also say that on this account the same part of the male and\nof the female is placed in the temple, that of the male to Liber,\nand that of the female to Libera. To these things they add the\nwomen assigned to Liber, and the wine for exciting lust. Thus the\nBacchanalia are celebrated with the utmost insanity, with respect to\nwhich Varro himself confesses that such things would not be done by\nthe Bacchanals except their minds were highly excited. These things,\nhowever, afterwards displeased a saner senate, and it ordered them\nto be discontinued. Here, at length, they perhaps perceived how\nmuch power unclean spirits, when held to be gods, exercise over the\nminds of men. These things, certainly, were not to be done in the\ntheatres; for there they play, not rave, although to have gods who\nare delighted with such plays is very like raving.\n\nBut what kind of distinction is this which he makes between the\nreligious and the superstitious man, saying that the gods are\nfeared[238] by the superstitious man, but are reverenced[239] as\nparents by the religious man, not feared as enemies; and that they are\nall so good that they will more readily spare those who are impious\nthan hurt one who is innocent? And yet he tells us that three gods are\nassigned as guardians to a woman after she has been delivered, lest\nthe god Silvanus come in and molest her; and that in order to signify\nthe presence of these protectors, three men go round the house during\nthe night, and first strike the threshold with a hatchet, next with a\npestle, and the third time sweep it with a brush, in order that these\nsymbols of agriculture having been exhibited, the god Silvanus might be\nhindered from entering, because neither are trees cut down or pruned\nwithout a hatchet, neither is grain ground without a pestle, nor corn\nheaped up without a besom. Now from these three things three gods\nhave been named: Intercidona, from the cut[240] made by the hatchet;\nPilumnus, from the pestle; Diverra, from the besom;--by which guardian\ngods the woman who has been delivered is preserved against the power of\nthe god Silvanus. Thus the guardianship of kindly-disposed gods would\nnot avail against the malice of a mischievous god, unless they were\nthree to one, and fought against him, as it were, with the opposing\nemblems of cultivation, who, being an inhabitant of the woods, is\nrough, horrible, and uncultivated. Is this the innocence of the gods?\nIs this their concord? Are these the health-giving deities of the\ncities, more ridiculous than the things which are laughed at in the\ntheatres?\n\nWhen a male and a female are united, the god Jugatinus presides.\nWell, let this be borne with. But the married woman must be brought\nhome: the god Domiducus also is invoked. That she may be in the\nhouse, the god Domitius is introduced. That she may remain with her\nhusband, the goddess Manturn\u00e6 is used. What more is required? Let\nhuman modesty be spared. Let the lust of flesh and blood go on with\nthe rest, the secret of shame being respected. Why is the bedchamber\nfilled with a crowd of deities, when even the groomsmen[241] have\ndeparted? And, moreover, it is so filled, not that in consideration\nof their presence more regard may be paid to chastity, but that by\ntheir help the woman, naturally of the weaker sex, and trembling\nwith the novelty of her situation, may the more readily yield her\nvirginity. For there are the goddess Virginiensis, and the god-father\nSubigus, and the goddess-mother Prema, and the goddess Pertunda,\nand Venus, and Priapus.[242] What is this? If it was absolutely\nnecessary that a man, labouring at this work, should be helped by\nthe gods, might not some one god or goddess have been sufficient?\nWas Venus not sufficient alone, who is even said to be named from\nthis, that without her power a woman does not cease to be a virgin?\nIf there is any shame in men, which is not in the deities, is it not\nthe case that, when the married couple believe that so many gods\nof either sex are present, and busy at this work, they are so much\naffected with shame, that the man is less moved, and the woman more\nreluctant? And certainly, if the goddess Virginiensis is present\nto loose the virgin's zone, if the god Subigus is present that the\nvirgin may be got under the man, if the goddess Prema is present\nthat, having been got under him, she may be kept down, and may not\nmove herself, what has the goddess Pertunda to do there? Let her\nblush; let her go forth. Let the husband himself do something. It is\ndisgraceful that any one but himself should do that from which she\ngets her name. But perhaps she is tolerated because she is said to\nbe a goddess, and not a god. For if she were believed to be a male,\nand were called Pertundus, the husband would demand more help against\nhim for the chastity of his wife than the newly-delivered woman\nagainst Silvanus. But why am I saying this, when Priapus, too, is\nthere, a male to excess, upon whose immense and most unsightly member\nthe newly-married bride is commanded to sit, according to the most\nhonourable and most religious custom of matrons?\n\nLet them go on, and let them attempt with all the subtlety they can\nto distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous, the cities from\nthe theatres, the temples from the stages, the sacred things of the\npriests from the songs of the poets, as honourable things from base\nthings, truthful things from fallacious, grave from light, serious\nfrom ludicrous, desirable things from things to be rejected, we\nunderstand what they do. They are aware that that theatrical and\nfabulous theology hangs by the civil, and is reflected back upon it\nfrom the songs of the poets as from a mirror; and thus, that theology\nhaving been exposed to view which they do not dare to condemn, they\nmore freely assail and censure that picture of it, in order that\nthose who perceive what they mean may detest this very face itself of\nwhich that is the picture,--which, however, the gods themselves, as\nthough seeing themselves in the same mirror, love so much, that it is\nbetter seen in both of them who and what they are. Whence, also, they\nhave compelled their worshippers, with terrible commands, to dedicate\nto them the uncleanness of the fabulous theology, to put them among\ntheir solemnities, and reckon them among divine things; and thus they\nhave both shown themselves more manifestly to be most impure spirits,\nand have made that rejected and reprobated theatrical theology a\nmember and a part of this, as it were, chosen and approved theology\nof the city, so that, though the whole is disgraceful and false, and\ncontains in it fictitious gods, one part of it is in the literature\nof the priests, the other in the songs of the poets. Whether it may\nhave other parts is another question. At present, I think, I have\nsufficiently shown, on account of the division of Varro, that the\ntheology of the city and that of the theatre belong to one civil\ntheology. Wherefore, because they are both equally disgraceful,\nabsurd, shameful, false, far be it from religious men to hope for\neternal life from either the one or the other.\n\nIn fine, even Varro himself, in his account and enumeration of the\ngods, starts from the moment of a man's conception. He commences\nthe series of those gods who take charge of man with Janus, carries\nit on to the death of the man decrepit with age, and terminates\nit with the goddess N\u00e6nia, who is sung at the funerals of the\naged. After that, he begins to give an account of the other gods,\nwhose province is not man himself, but man's belongings, as food,\nclothing, and all that is necessary for this life; and, in the case\nof all these, he explains what is the special office of each, and\nfor what each ought to be supplicated. But with all this scrupulous\nand comprehensive diligence, he has neither proved the existence,\nnor so much as mentioned the name, of any god from whom eternal life\nis to be sought,--the one object for which we are Christians. Who,\nthen, is so stupid as not to perceive that this man, by setting forth\nand opening up so diligently the civil theology, and by exhibiting\nits likeness to that fabulous, shameful, and disgraceful theology,\nand also by teaching that that fabulous sort is also a part of this\nother, was labouring to obtain a place in the minds of men for none\nbut that natural theology which he says pertains to philosophers,\nwith such subtlety that he censures the fabulous, and, not daring\nopenly to censure the civil, shows its censurable character by simply\nexhibiting it; and thus, both being reprobated by the judgment of men\nof right understanding, the natural alone remains to be chosen? But\nconcerning this in its own place, by the help of the true God, we\nhave to discuss more diligently.\n\n\n      10. _Concerning the liberty of Seneca, who more vehemently\n       censured the civil theology than Varro did the fabulous._\n\nThat liberty, in truth, which this man wanted, so that he did not\ndare to censure that theology of the city, which is very similar\nto the theatrical, so openly as he did the theatrical itself, was,\nthough not fully, yet in part possessed by Ann\u00e6us Seneca, whom we\nhave some evidence to show to have flourished in the times of our\napostles. It was in part possessed by him, I say, for he possessed\nit in writing, but not in living. For in that book which he wrote\nagainst superstition,[243] he more copiously and vehemently censured\nthat civil and urban theology than Varro the theatrical and fabulous.\nFor, when speaking concerning images, he says, \"They dedicate\nimages of the sacred and inviolable immortals in most worthless and\nmotionless matter. They give them the appearance of man, beasts, and\nfishes, and some make them of mixed sex, and heterogeneous bodies.\nThey call them deities, when they are such that if they should get\nbreath and should suddenly meet them, they would be held to be\nmonsters.\" Then, a while afterwards, when extolling the natural\ntheology, he had expounded the sentiments of certain philosophers, he\nopposes to himself a question, and says, \"Here some one says, Shall\nI believe that the heavens and the earth are gods, and that some are\nabove the moon and some below it? Shall I bring forward either Plato\nor the peripatetic Strato, one of whom made God to be without a body,\nthe other without a mind?\" In answer to which he says, \"And, really,\nwhat truer do the dreams of Titus Tatius, or Romulus, or Tullus\nHostilius appear to thee? Tatius declared the divinity of the goddess\nCloacina; Romulus that of Picus and Tiberinus; Tullus Hostilius that\nof Pavor and Pallor, the most disagreeable affections of men, the one\nof which is the agitation of the mind under fright, the other that\nof the body, not a disease, indeed, but a change of colour.\" Wilt\nthou rather believe that these are deities, and receive them into\nheaven? But with what freedom he has written concerning the rites\nthemselves, cruel and shameful! \"One,\" he says, \"castrates himself,\nanother cuts his arms. Where will they find room for the fear of\nthese gods when angry, who use such means of gaining their favour\nwhen propitious? But gods who wish to be worshipped in this fashion\nshould be worshipped in none. So great is the frenzy of the mind when\nperturbed and driven from its seat, that the gods are propitiated by\nmen in a manner in which not even men of the greatest ferocity and\nfable-renowned cruelty vent their rage. Tyrants have lacerated the\nlimbs of some; they never ordered any one to lacerate his own. For\nthe gratification of royal lust, some have been castrated; but no\none ever, by the command of his lord, laid violent hands on himself\nto emasculate himself. They kill themselves in the temples. They\nsupplicate with their wounds and with their blood. If any one has\ntime to see the things they do and the things they suffer, he will\nfind so many things unseemly for men of respectability, so unworthy\nof freemen, so unlike the doings of sane men, that no one would\ndoubt that they are mad, had they been mad with the minority; but now\nthe multitude of the insane is the defence of their sanity.\"\n\nHe next relates those things which are wont to be done in the Capitol,\nand with the utmost intrepidity insists that they are such things as\none could only believe to be done by men making sport, or by madmen.\nFor, having spoken with derision of this, that in the Egyptian sacred\nrites Osiris, being lost, is lamented for, but straightway, when found,\nis the occasion of great joy by his reappearance, because both the\nlosing and the finding of him are feigned; and yet that grief and that\njoy which are elicited thereby from those who have lost nothing and\nfound nothing are real;--having, I say, so spoken of this, he says,\n\"Still there is a fixed time for this frenzy. It is tolerable to go\nmad once in the year. Go into the Capitol. One is suggesting divine\ncommands[244] to a god; another is telling the hours to Jupiter;\none is a lictor; another is an anointer, who with the mere movement\nof his arms imitates one anointing. There are women who arrange the\nhair of Juno and Minerva, standing far away not only from her image,\nbut even from her temple. These move their fingers in the manner of\nhair-dressers. There are some women who hold a mirror. There are some\nwho are calling the gods to assist them in court. There are some who\nare holding up documents to them, and are explaining to them their\ncases. A learned and distinguished comedian, now old and decrepit,\nwas daily playing the mimic in the Capitol, as though the gods would\ngladly be spectators of that which men had ceased to care about. Every\nkind of artificers working for the immortal gods is dwelling there in\nidleness.\" And a little after he says, \"Nevertheless these, though they\ngive themselves up to the gods for purposes superfluous enough, do not\ndo so for any abominable or infamous purpose. There sit certain women\nin the Capitol who think they are beloved by Jupiter; nor are they\nfrightened even by the look of the, if you will believe the poets, most\nwrathful Juno.\"\n\nThis liberty Varro did not enjoy. It was only the poetical theology he\nseemed to censure. The civil, which this man cuts to pieces, he was\nnot bold enough to impugn. But if we attend to the truth, the temples\nwhere these things are performed are far worse than the theatres where\nthey are represented. Whence, with respect to these sacred rites of the\ncivil theology, Seneca preferred, as the best course to be followed\nby a wise man, to feign respect for them in act, but to have no real\nregard for them at heart. \"All which things,\" he says, \"a wise man will\nobserve as being commanded by the laws, but not as being pleasing to\nthe gods.\" And a little after he says, \"And what of this, that we unite\nthe gods in marriage, and that not even naturally, for we join brothers\nand sisters? We marry Bellona to Mars, Venus to Vulcan, Salacia to\nNeptune. Some of them we leave unmarried, as though there were no match\nfor them, which is surely needless, especially when there are certain\nunmarried goddesses, as Populonia, or Fulgora, or the goddess Rumina,\nfor whom I am not astonished that suitors have been awanting. All this\nignoble crowd of gods, which the superstition of ages has amassed, we\nought,\" he says, \"to adore in such a way as to remember all the while\nthat its worship belongs rather to custom than to reality.\" Wherefore,\nneither those laws nor customs instituted in the civil theology that\nwhich was pleasing to the gods, or which pertained to reality. But this\nman, whom philosophy had made, as it were, free, nevertheless, because\nhe was an illustrious senator of the Roman people, worshipped what he\ncensured, did what he condemned, adored what he reproached, because,\nforsooth, philosophy had taught him something great,--namely, not to\nbe superstitious in the world, but, on account of the laws of cities\nand the customs of men, to be an actor, not on the stage, but in the\ntemples,--conduct the more to be condemned, that those things which\nhe was deceitfully acting he so acted that the people thought he was\nacting sincerely. But a stage-actor would rather delight people by\nacting plays than take them in by false pretences.\n\n\n            11. _What Seneca thought concerning the Jews._\n\nSeneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology, also\nfound fault with the sacred things of the Jews, and especially the\nsabbaths, affirming that they act uselessly in keeping those seventh\ndays, whereby they lose through idleness about the seventh part of\ntheir life, and also many things which demand immediate attention\nare damaged. The Christians, however, who were already most hostile\nto the Jews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame,\nlest, if he praised them, he should do so against the ancient custom\nof his country, or, perhaps, if he should blame them, he should do so\nagainst his own will.\n\nWhen he was speaking concerning those Jews, he said, \"When,\nmeanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such\nstrength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered\nhave given laws to the conquerors.\" By these words he expresses his\nastonishment; and, not knowing what the providence of God was leading\nhim to say, subjoins in plain words an opinion by which he showed\nwhat he thought about the meaning of those sacred institutions:\n\"For,\" he says, \"those, however, know the cause of their rites,\nwhilst the greater part of the people know not why they perform\ntheirs.\" But concerning the solemnities of the Jews, either why or\nhow far they were instituted by divine authority, and afterwards, in\ndue time, by the same authority taken away from the people of God, to\nwhom the mystery of eternal life was revealed, we have both spoken\nelsewhere, especially when we were treating against the Manich\u00e6ans,\nand also intend to speak in this work in a more suitable place.\n\n\n  12. _That when once the vanity of the gods of the nations has been\n      exposed, it cannot be doubted that they are unable to bestow\n      eternal life on any one, when they cannot afford help even with\n      respect to the things of this temporal life._\n\nNow, since there are three theologies, which the Greeks call\nrespectively mythical, physical, and political, and which may be\ncalled in Latin fabulous, natural, and civil; and since neither from\nthe fabulous, which even the worshippers of many and false gods have\nthemselves most freely censured, nor from the civil, of which that is\nconvicted of being a part, or even worse than it, can eternal life be\nhoped for from any of these theologies,--if any one thinks that what\nhas been said in this book is not enough for him, let him also add\nto it the many and various dissertations concerning God as the giver\nof felicity, contained in the former books, especially the fourth one.\n\nFor to what but to felicity should men consecrate themselves, were\nfelicity a goddess? However, as it is not a goddess, but a gift of\nGod, to what God but the giver of happiness ought we to consecrate\nourselves, who piously love eternal life, in which there is true and\nfull felicity? But I think, from what has been said, no one ought\nto doubt that none of those gods is the giver of happiness, who are\nworshipped with such shame, and who, if they are not so worshipped,\nare more shamefully enraged, and thus confess that they are most\nfoul spirits. Moreover, how can he give eternal life who cannot\ngive happiness? For we mean by eternal life that life where there\nis endless happiness. For if the soul live in eternal punishments,\nby which also those unclean spirits shall be tormented, that is\nrather eternal death than eternal life. For there is no greater or\nworse death than when death never dies. But because the soul from\nits very nature, being created immortal, cannot be without some kind\nof life, its utmost death is alienation from the life of God in an\neternity of punishment. So, then, He only who gives true happiness\ngives eternal life, that is, an endlessly happy life. And since those\ngods whom this civil theology worships have been proved to be unable\nto give this happiness, they ought not to be worshipped on account\nof those temporal and terrestrial things, as we showed in the five\nformer books, much less on account of eternal life, which is to be\nafter death, as we have sought to show in this one book especially,\nwhilst the other books also lend it their co-operation. But since\nthe strength of inveterate habit has its roots very deep, if any one\nthinks that I have not disputed sufficiently to show that this civil\ntheology ought to be rejected and shunned, let him attend to another\nbook which, with God's help, is to be joined to this one.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[226] Ps. xl. 4.\n\n[227] Plato, in the _Tim\u00e6us_.\n\n[228] Ch. xi. and xxi.\n\n[229] See Virgil, _Ec._ iii. 9.\n\n[230] Of the four books _De Acad._, dedicated to Varro, only a part\nof the first is extant.\n\n[231] Cicero, _De Qu\u00e6st. Acad._ i. 3.\n\n[232] In his book _De Metris_, chapter on phal\u00e6cian verses.\n\n[233] Tarquin the Proud, having bought the books of the sibyl,\nappointed two men to preserve and interpret them (Dionys. Halic.\n_Antiq._ iv. 62). These were afterwards increased to ten, while the\nplebeians were contending for larger privileges; and subsequently\nfive more were added.\n\n[234] Ch. 31.\n\n[235] _Fabulare._\n\n[236] _Fabulosum._\n\n[237] _Civile._\n\n[238] _Timeri._\n\n[239] _Vereri._\n\n[240] _Intercido_, I cut or cleave.\n\n[241] _Paranymphi._\n\n[242] Comp. Tertullian, _Adv. Nat._ ii. 11; Arnobius, _Contra Gent._\niv.; Lactantius, _Inst._ i. 20.\n\n[243] Mentioned also by Tertullian, _Apol._ 12, but not extant.\n\n[244] _Numina._ Another reading is _nomina_; and with either reading\nanother translation is admissible: \"One is announcing to a god the\nnames (or gods) who salute him.\"\n\n\n\n\n                             BOOK SEVENTH.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  IN THIS BOOK IT IS SHOWN THAT ETERNAL LIFE IS NOT OBTAINED BY THE\n      WORSHIP OF JANUS, JUPITER, SATURN, AND THE OTHER \"SELECT GODS\"\n      OF THE CIVIL THEOLOGY.\n\n\n                               PREFACE.\n\nIt will be the duty of those who are endowed with quicker and better\nunderstandings, in whose case the former books are sufficient, and\nmore than sufficient, to effect their intended object, to bear with\nme with patience and equanimity whilst I attempt with more than\nordinary diligence to tear up and eradicate depraved and ancient\nopinions hostile to the truth of piety, which the long-continued\nerror of the human race has fixed very deeply in unenlightened minds;\nco-operating also in this, according to my little measure, with the\ngrace of Him who, being the true God, is able to accomplish it, and\non whose help I depend in my work; and, for the sake of others, such\nshould not deem superfluous what they feel to be no longer necessary\nfor themselves. A very great matter is at stake when the true and\ntruly holy divinity is commended to men as that which they ought to\nseek after and to worship; not, however, on account of the transitory\nvapour of mortal life, but on account of life eternal, which alone is\nblessed, although the help necessary for this frail life we are now\nliving is also afforded us by it.\n\n\n  1. _Whether, since it is evident that Deity is not to be found in\n      the civil theology, we are to believe that it is to be found in\n      the select gods._\n\nIf there is any one whom the sixth book, which I have last finished,\nhas not persuaded that this divinity, or, so to speak, deity--for\nthis word also our authors do not hesitate to use, in order to\ntranslate more accurately that which the Greeks call \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2;--if\nthere is any one, I say, whom the sixth book has not persuaded that\nthis divinity or deity is not to be found in that theology which\nthey call civil, and which Marcus Varro has explained in sixteen\nbooks,--that is, that the happiness of eternal life is not attainable\nthrough the worship of gods such as states have established to be\nworshipped, and that in such a form,--perhaps, when he has read this\nbook, he will not have anything further to desire in order to the\nclearing up of this question. For it is possible that some one may\nthink that at least the select and chief gods, whom Varro comprised\nin his last book, and of whom we have not spoken sufficiently, are\nto be worshipped on account of the blessed life, which is none other\nthan eternal. In respect to which matter I do not say what Tertullian\nsaid, perhaps more wittily than truly, \"If gods are selected like\nonions, certainly the rest are rejected as bad.\"[245] I do not say\nthis, for I see that even from among the select, some are selected\nfor some greater and more excellent office: as in warfare, when\nrecruits have been elected, there are some again elected from among\nthose for the performance of some greater military service; and in\nthe church, when persons are elected to be overseers, certainly the\nrest are not rejected, since all good Christians are deservedly\ncalled elect; in the erection of a building corner stones are\nelected, though the other stones, which are destined for other parts\nof the structure, are not rejected; grapes are elected for eating,\nwhilst the others, which we leave for drinking, are not rejected.\nThere is no need of adducing many illustrations, since the thing is\nevident. Wherefore the selection of certain gods from among many\naffords no proper reason why either he who wrote on this subject,\nor the worshippers of the gods, or the gods themselves, should be\nspurned. We ought rather to seek to know what gods these are, and for\nwhat purpose they may appear to have been selected.\n\n\n     2. _Who are the select gods, and whether they are held to be\n            exempt from the offices of the commoner gods._\n\nThe following gods, certainly, Varro signalizes as select, devoting\none book to this subject: Janus, Jupiter, Saturn, Genius, Mercury,\nApollo, Mars, Vulcan, Neptune, Sol, Orcus, father Liber, Tellus,\nCeres, Juno, Luna, Diana, Minerva, Venus, Vesta; of which twenty\ngods, twelve are males, and eight females. Whether are these deities\ncalled select, because of their higher spheres of administration in\nthe world, or because they have become better known to the people,\nand more worship has been expended on them? If it be on account of\nthe greater works which are performed by them in the world, we ought\nnot to have found them among that, as it were, plebeian crowd of\ndeities, which has assigned to it the charge of minute and trifling\nthings. For, first of all, at the conception of a f\u0153tus, from which\npoint all the works commence which have been distributed in minute\ndetail to many deities, Janus himself opens the way for the reception\nof the seed; there also is Saturn, on account of the seed itself;\nthere is Liber,[246] who liberates the male by the effusion of the\nseed; there is Libera, whom they also would have to be Venus, who\nconfers this same benefit on the woman, namely, that she also be\nliberated by the emission of the seed;--all these are of the number\nof those who are called select. But there is also the goddess Mena,\nwho presides over the menses; though the daughter of Jupiter, ignoble\nnevertheless. And this province of the menses the same author, in his\nbook on the select gods, assigns to Juno herself, who is even queen\namong the select gods; and here, as Juno Lucina, along with the same\nMena, her stepdaughter, she presides over the same blood. There also\nare two gods, exceedingly obscure, Vitumnus and Sentinus--the one of\nwhom imparts life to the f\u0153tus, and the other sensation; and, of a\ntruth, they bestow, most ignoble though they be, far more than all\nthose noble and select gods bestow. For, surely, without life and\nsensation, what is the whole f\u0153tus which a woman carries in her womb,\nbut a most vile and worthless thing, no better than slime and dust?\n\n\n  3. _How there is no reason which can be shown for the selection of\n      certain gods, when the administration of more exalted offices\n      is assigned to many inferior gods._\n\nWhat is the cause, therefore, which has driven so many select gods\nto these very small works, in which they are excelled by Vitumnus\nand Sentinus, though little known and sunk in obscurity, inasmuch\nas they confer the munificent gifts of life and sensation? For the\nselect Janus bestows an entrance, and, as it were, a door[247] for\nthe seed; the select Saturn bestows the seed itself; the select Liber\nbestows on men the emission of the same seed; Libera, who is Ceres\nor Venus, confers the same on women; the select Juno confers (not\nalone, but together with Mena, the daughter of Jupiter) the menses,\nfor the growth of that which has been conceived; and the obscure\nand ignoble Vitumnus confers life, whilst the obscure and ignoble\nSentinus confers sensation;--which two last things are as much more\nexcellent than the others, as they themselves are excelled by reason\nand intellect. For as those things which reason and understand are\npreferable to those which, without intellect and reason, as in the\ncase of cattle, live and feel; so also those things which have\nbeen endowed with life and sensation are deservedly preferred to\nthose things which neither live nor feel. Therefore Vitumnus the\nlife-giver,[248] and Sentinus the sense-giver,[249] ought to have\nbeen reckoned among the select gods, rather than Janus the admitter\nof seed, and Saturn the giver or sower of seed, and Liber and Libera\nthe movers and liberators of seed; which seed is not worth a thought,\nunless it attain to life and sensation. Yet these select gifts are\nnot given by select gods, but by certain unknown, and, considering\ntheir dignity, neglected gods. But if it be replied that Janus has\ndominion over all beginnings, and therefore the opening of the way\nfor conception is not without reason assigned to him; and that\nSaturn has dominion over all seeds, and therefore the sowing of the\nseed whereby a human being is generated cannot be excluded from his\noperation; that Liber and Libera have power over the emission of\nall seeds, and therefore preside over those seeds which pertain to\nthe procreation of men; that Juno presides over all purgations and\nbirths, and therefore she has also charge of the purgations of women\nand the births of human beings;--if they give this reply, let them\nfind an answer to the question concerning Vitumnus and Sentinus,\nwhether they are willing that these likewise should have dominion\nover all things which live and feel. If they grant this, let them\nobserve in how sublime a position they are about to place them. For\nto spring from seeds is in the earth and of the earth, but to live\nand feel are supposed to be properties even of the sidereal gods.\nBut if they say that only such things as come to life in flesh, and\nare supported by senses, are assigned to Sentinus, why does not that\nGod who made all things live and feel, bestow on flesh also life\nand sensation, in the universality of His operation conferring also\non f\u0153tuses this gift? And what, then, is the use of Vitumnus and\nSentinus? But if these, as it were, extreme and lowest things have\nbeen committed by Him who presides universally over life and sense to\nthese gods as to servants, are these select gods then so destitute\nof servants, that they could not find any to whom even they might\ncommit those things, but with all their dignity, for which they are,\nit seems, deemed worthy to be selected, were compelled to perform\ntheir work along with ignoble ones? Juno is select queen of the gods,\nand the sister and wife of Jupiter; nevertheless she is Iterduca,\nthe conductor, to boys, and performs this work along with a most\nignoble pair--the goddesses Abeona and Adeona. There they have also\nplaced the goddess Mena, who gives to boys a good mind, and she is\nnot placed among the select gods; as if anything greater could be\nbestowed on a man than a good mind. But Juno is placed among the\nselect because she is Iterduca and Domiduca (she who conducts one\non a journey, and who conducts him home again); as if it is of any\nadvantage for one to make a journey, and to be conducted home again,\nif his mind is not good. And yet the goddess who bestows that gift\nhas not been placed by the selectors among the select gods, though\nshe ought indeed to have been preferred even to Minerva, to whom, in\nthis minute distribution of work, they have allotted the memory of\nboys. For who will doubt that it is a far better thing to have a good\nmind, than ever so great a memory? For no one is bad who has a good\nmind;[250] but some who are very bad are possessed of an admirable\nmemory, and are so much the worse, the less they are able to forget\nthe bad things which they think. And yet Minerva is among the select\ngods, whilst the goddess Mena is hidden by a worthless crowd. What\nshall I say concerning Virtus? What concerning Felicitas?--concerning\nwhom I have already spoken much in the fourth book,[251] to whom,\nthough they held them to be goddesses, they have not thought fit to\nassign a place among the select gods, among whom they have given a\nplace to Mars and Orcus, the one the causer of death, the other the\nreceiver of the dead.\n\nSince, therefore, we see that even the select gods themselves work\ntogether with the others, like a senate with the people, in all those\nminute works which have been minutely portioned out among many gods;\nand since we find that far greater and better things are administered\nby certain gods who have not been reckoned worthy to be selected\nthan by those who are called select, it remains that we suppose that\nthey were called select and chief, not on account of their holding\nmore exalted offices in the world, but because it happened to them\nto become better known to the people. And even Varro himself says,\nthat in that way obscurity had fallen to the lot of some father\ngods and mother goddesses,[252] as it falls to the lot of men. If,\ntherefore, Felicity ought not perhaps to have been put among the\nselect gods, because they did not attain to that noble position\nby merit, but by chance, Fortune at least should have been placed\namong them, or rather before them; for they say that that goddess\ndistributes to every one the gifts she receives, not according to\nany rational arrangement, but according as chance may determine.\nShe ought to have held the uppermost place among the select gods,\nfor among them chiefly it is that she shows what power she has. For\nwe see that they have been selected not on account of some eminent\nvirtue or rational happiness, but by that random power of Fortune\nwhich the worshippers of these gods think that she exerts. For that\nmost eloquent man Sallust also may perhaps have the gods themselves\nin view when he says: \"But, in truth, fortune rules in everything;\nit renders all things famous or obscure, according to caprice rather\nthan according to truth.\"[253] For they cannot discover a reason\nwhy Venus should have been made famous, whilst Virtus has been\nmade obscure, when the divinity of both of them has been solemnly\nrecognised by them, and their merits are not to be compared. Again,\nif she has deserved a noble position on account of the fact that she\nis much sought after--for there are more who seek after Venus than\nafter Virtus--why has Minerva been celebrated whilst Pecunia has been\nleft in obscurity, although throughout the whole human race avarice\nallures a far greater number than skill? And even among those who are\nskilled in the arts, you will rarely find a man who does not practise\nhis own art for the purpose of pecuniary gain; and that for the sake\nof which anything is made, is always valued more than that which is\nmade for the sake of something else. If, then, this selection of gods\nhas been made by the judgment of the foolish multitude, why has not\nthe goddess Pecunia been preferred to Minerva, since there are many\nartificers for the sake of money? But if this distinction has been\nmade by the few wise, why has Virtus been preferred to Venus, when\nreason by far prefers the former? At all events, as I have already\nsaid, Fortune herself--who, according to those who attribute most\ninfluence to her, renders all things famous or obscure according to\ncaprice rather than according to the truth--since she has been able\nto exercise so much power even over the gods, as, according to her\ncapricious judgment, to render those of them famous whom she would,\nand those obscure whom she would; Fortune herself ought to occupy the\nplace of pre-eminence among the select gods, since over them also she\nhas such pre-eminent power. Or must we suppose that the reason why\nshe is not among the select is simply this, that even Fortune herself\nhas had an adverse fortune? She was adverse, then, to herself, since,\nwhilst ennobling others, she herself has remained obscure.\n\n\n  4. _The inferior gods, whose names are not associated with infamy,\n      have been better dealt with than the select gods, whose\n      infamies are celebrated._\n\nHowever, any one who eagerly seeks for celebrity and renown, might\ncongratulate those select gods, and call them fortunate, were it not\nthat he saw that they have been selected more to their injury than to\ntheir honour. For that low crowd of gods have been protected by their\nvery meanness and obscurity from being overwhelmed with infamy. We\nlaugh, indeed, when we see them distributed by the mere fiction of\nhuman opinions, according to the special works assigned to them, like\nthose who farm small portions of the public revenue, or like workmen\nin the street of the silversmiths,[254] where one vessel, in order\nthat it may go out perfect, passes through the hands of many, when\nit might have been finished by one perfect workman. But the only\nreason why the combined skill of many workmen was thought necessary,\nwas, that it is better that each part of an art should be learned by\na special workman, which can be done speedily and easily, than that\nthey should all be compelled to be perfect in one art throughout all\nits parts, which they could only attain slowly and with difficulty.\nNevertheless there is scarcely to be found one of the non-select\ngods who has brought infamy on himself by any crime, whilst there\nis scarce any one of the select gods who has not received upon\nhimself the brand of notable infamy. These latter have descended to\nthe humble works of the others, whilst the others have not come up\nto their sublime crimes. Concerning Janus, there does not readily\noccur to my recollection anything infamous; and perhaps he was such\nan one as lived more innocently than the rest, and further removed\nfrom misdeeds and crimes. He kindly received and entertained Saturn\nwhen he was fleeing; he divided his kingdom with his guest, so that\neach of them had a city for himself,[255]--the one Janiculum, and the\nother Saturnia. But those seekers after every kind of unseemliness\nin the worship of the gods have disgraced him, whose life they found\nto be less disgraceful than that of the other gods, with an image\nof monstrous deformity, making it sometimes with two faces, and\nsometimes, as it were, double, with four faces.[256] Did they wish\nthat, as the most of the select gods had lost shame[257] through the\nperpetration of shameful crimes, his greater innocence should be\nmarked by a greater number of faces?[258]\n\n\n      5. _Concerning the more secret doctrine of the pagans, and\n               concerning the physical interpretations._\n\nBut let us hear their own physical interpretations by which they\nattempt to colour, as with the appearance of profounder doctrine,\nthe baseness of most miserable error. Varro, in the first place,\ncommends these interpretations so strongly as to say, that the\nancients invented the images, badges, and adornments of the gods,\nin order that when those who went to the mysteries should see them\nwith their bodily eyes, they might with the eyes of their mind see\nthe soul of the world, and its parts, that is, the true gods; and\nalso that the meaning which was intended by those who made their\nimages with the human form, seemed to be this,--namely, that the mind\nof mortals, which is in a human body, is very like to the immortal\nmind,[259] just as vessels might be placed to represent the gods,\nas, for instance, a wine-vessel might be placed in the temple of\nLiber, to signify wine, that which is contained being signified by\nthat which contains. Thus by an image which had the human form the\nrational soul was signified, because the human form is the vessel,\nas it were, in which that nature is wont to be contained which they\nattribute to God, or to the gods. These are the mysteries of doctrine\nto which that most learned man penetrated in order that he might\nbring them forth to the light. But, O thou most acute man, hast thou\nlost among those mysteries that prudence which led thee to form the\nsober opinion, that those who first established those images for the\npeople took away fear from the citizens and added error, and that\nthe ancient Romans honoured the gods more chastely without images?\nFor it was through consideration of them that thou wast emboldened\nto speak these things against the later Romans. For if those most\nancient Romans also had worshipped images, perhaps thou wouldst\nhave suppressed by the silence of fear all those sentiments (true\nsentiments, nevertheless) concerning the folly of setting up images,\nand wouldst have extolled more loftily, and more loquaciously,\nthose mysterious doctrines consisting of these vain and pernicious\nfictions. Thy soul, so learned and so clever (and for this I grieve\nmuch for thee), could never through these mysteries have reached its\nGod; that is, the God by whom, not with whom, it was made, of whom\nit is not a part, but a work,--that God who is not the soul of all\nthings, but who made every soul, and in whose light alone every soul\nis blessed, if it be not ungrateful for His grace.\n\nBut the things which follow in this book will show what is the nature\nof these mysteries, and what value is to be set upon them. Meanwhile,\nthis most learned man confesses as his opinion that the soul of the\nworld and its parts are the true gods, from which we perceive that\nhis theology (to wit, that same natural theology to which he pays\ngreat regard) has been able, in its completeness, to extend itself\neven to the nature of the rational soul. For in this book (concerning\nthe select gods) he says a very few things by anticipation concerning\nthe natural theology; and we shall see whether he has been able in\nthat book, by means of physical interpretations, to refer to this\nnatural theology that civil theology, concerning which he wrote last\nwhen treating of the select gods. Now, if he has been able to do\nthis, the whole is natural; and in that case, what need was there for\ndistinguishing so carefully the civil from the natural? But if it\nhas been distinguished by a veritable distinction, then, since not\neven this natural theology with which he is so much pleased is true\n(for though it has reached as far as the soul, it has not reached\nto the true God who made the soul), how much more contemptible and\nfalse is that civil theology which is chiefly occupied about what is\ncorporeal, as will be shown by its very interpretations, which they\nhave with such diligence sought out and enucleated, some of which I\nmust necessarily mention!\n\n\n  6. _Concerning the opinion of Varro, that God is the soul of the\n      world, which nevertheless, in its various parts, has many souls\n      whose nature is divine._\n\nThe same Varro, then, still speaking by anticipation, says that he\nthinks that God is the soul of the world (which the Greeks call\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), and that this world itself is God; but as a wise man, though\nhe consists of body and mind, is nevertheless called wise on account\nof his mind, so the world is called God on account of mind, although\nit consists of mind and body. Here he seems, in some fashion at least,\nto acknowledge one God; but that he may introduce more, he adds that\nthe world is divided into two parts, heaven and earth, which are\nagain divided each into two parts, heaven into ether and air, earth\ninto water and land, of all which the ether is the highest, the air\nsecond, the water third, and the earth the lowest. All these four\nparts, he says, are full of souls; those which are in the ether and\nair being immortal, and those which are in the water and on the earth\nmortal. From the highest part of the heavens to the orbit of the moon\nthere are souls, namely, the stars and planets; and these are not only\nunderstood to be gods, but are seen to be such. And between the orbit\nof the moon and the commencement of the region of clouds and winds\nthere are aerial souls; but these are seen with the mind, not with the\neyes, and are called Heroes, and Lares, and Genii. This is the natural\ntheology which is briefly set forth in these anticipatory statements,\nand which satisfied not Varro only, but many philosophers besides. This\nI must discuss more carefully, when, with the help of God, I shall have\ncompleted what I have yet to say concerning the civil theology, as far\nas it concerns the select gods.\n\n\n    7. _Whether it is reasonable to separate Janus and Terminus as\n                        two distinct deities._\n\nWho, then, is Janus, with whom Varro commences? He is the world.\nCertainly a very brief and unambiguous reply. Why, then, do they\nsay that the beginnings of things pertain to him, but the ends to\nanother whom they call Terminus? For they say that two months have\nbeen dedicated to these two gods, with reference to beginnings\nand ends--January to Janus, and February to Terminus--over and\nabove those ten months which commence with March and end with\nDecember. And they say that that is the reason why the Terminalia\nare celebrated in the month of February, the same month in which\nthe sacred purification is made which they call Februum, and from\nwhich the month derives its name.[260] Do the beginnings of things,\ntherefore, pertain to the world, which is Janus, and not also the\nends, since another god has been placed over them? Do they not\nown that all things which they say begin in this world also come\nto an end in this world? What folly it is, to give him only half\npower in work, when in his image they give him two faces! Would it\nnot be a far more elegant way of interpreting the two-faced image,\nto say that Janus and Terminus are the same, and that the one face\nhas reference to beginnings, the other to ends? For one who works\nought to have respect to both. For he who in every forthputting of\nactivity does not look back on the beginning, does not look forward\nto the end. Wherefore it is necessary that prospective intention be\nconnected with retrospective memory. For how shall one find how to\nfinish anything, if he has forgotten what it was which he had begun?\nBut if they thought that the blessed life is begun in this world,\nand perfected beyond the world, and for that reason attributed to\nJanus, that is, to the world, only the power of beginnings, they\nshould certainly have preferred Terminus to him, and should not have\nshut him out from the number of the select gods. Yet even now, when\nthe beginnings and ends of temporal things are represented by these\ntwo gods, more honour ought to have been given to Terminus. For the\ngreater joy is that which is felt when anything is finished; but\nthings begun are always cause of much anxiety until they are brought\nto an end, which end he who begins anything very greatly longs for,\nfixes his mind on, expects, desires; nor does any one ever rejoice\nover anything he has begun, unless it be brought to an end.\n\n\n  8. _For what reason the worshippers of Janus have made his image\n      with two faces, when they would sometimes have it be seen with\n      four._\n\nBut now let the interpretation of the two-faced image be produced.\nFor they say that it has two faces, one before and one behind,\nbecause our gaping mouths seem to resemble the world: whence the\nGreeks call the palate \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, and some Latin poets,[261] he says,\nhave called the heavens palatum [the palate]; and from the gaping\nmouth, they say, there is a way out in the direction of the teeth,\nand a way in in the direction of the gullet. See what the world has\nbeen brought to on account of a Greek or a poetical word for our\npalate! Let this god be worshipped only on account of saliva, which\nhas two open doorways under the heavens of the palate,--one through\nwhich part of it may be spitten out, the other through which part of\nit may be swallowed down. Besides, what is more absurd than not to\nfind in the world itself two doorways opposite to each other, through\nwhich it may either receive anything into itself, or cast it out from\nitself; and to seek of our throat and gullet, to which the world has\nno resemblance, to make up an image of the world in Janus, because\nthe world is said to resemble the _palate_, to which Janus bears no\nlikeness? But when they make him four-faced, and call him double\nJanus, they interpret this as having reference to the four quarters\nof the world, as though the world looked out on anything, like Janus\nthrough his four faces. Again, if Janus is the world, and the world\nconsists of four quarters, then the image of the two-faced Janus\nis false. Or if it is true, because the whole world is sometimes\nunderstood by the expression east and west, will any one call the\nworld double when north and south also are mentioned, as they call\nJanus double when he has four faces? They have no way at all of\ninterpreting, in relation to the world, four doorways by which to go\nin and to come out as they did in the case of the two-faced Janus,\nwhere they found, at any rate in the human mouth, something which\nanswered to what they said about him; unless perhaps Neptune come to\ntheir aid, and hand them a fish, which, besides the mouth and gullet,\nhas also the openings of the gills, one on each side. Nevertheless,\nwith all the doors, no soul escapes this vanity but that one which\nhears the truth saying, \"I am the door.\"[262]\n\n\n   9. _Concerning the power of Jupiter, and a comparison of Jupiter\n                             with Janus._\n\nBut they also show whom they would have Jove (who is also called\nJupiter) understood to be. He is the god, say they, who has the power\nof the causes by which anything comes to be in the world. And how\ngreat a thing this is, that most noble verse of Virgil testifies:\n\n          \"Happy is he who has learned the causes of things.\"[263]\n\nBut why is Janus preferred to him? Let that most acute and most\nlearned man answer us this question. \"Because,\" says he, \"Janus\nhas dominion over first things, Jupiter over highest[264] things.\nTherefore Jupiter is deservedly held to be the king of all things;\nfor highest things are better than first things: for although first\nthings precede in time, highest things excel by dignity.\"\n\nNow this would have been rightly said had the first parts of things\nwhich are done been distinguished from the highest parts; as, for\ninstance, it is the beginning of a thing done to set out, the highest\npart to arrive. The commencing to learn is the first part of a thing\nbegun, the acquirement of knowledge is the highest part. And so of\nall things: the beginnings are first, the ends highest. This matter,\nhowever, has been already discussed in connection with Janus and\nTerminus. But the causes which are attributed to Jupiter are things\neffecting, not things effected; and it is impossible for them to\nbe prevented in time by things which are made or done, or by the\nbeginnings of such things; for the thing which makes is always prior\nto the thing which is made. Therefore, though the beginnings of\nthings which are made or done pertain to Janus, they are nevertheless\nnot prior to the efficient causes which they attribute to Jupiter.\nFor as nothing takes place without being preceded by an efficient\ncause, so without an efficient cause nothing begins to take place.\nVerily, if the people call this god Jupiter, in whose power are all\nthe causes of all natures which have been made, and of all natural\nthings, and worship him with such insults and infamous criminations,\nthey are guilty of more shocking sacrilege than if they should\ntotally deny the existence of any god. It would therefore be better\nfor them to call some other god by the name of Jupiter--some one\nworthy of base and criminal honours; substituting instead of Jupiter\nsome vain fiction (as Saturn is said to have had a stone given to him\nto devour instead of his son), which they might make the subject of\ntheir blasphemies, rather than speak of _that_ god as both thundering\nand committing adultery,--ruling the whole world, and laying himself\nout for the commission of so many licentious acts,--having in his\npower nature and the highest causes of all natural things, but not\nhaving his own causes good.\n\nNext, I ask what place they find any longer for this Jupiter among\nthe gods, if Janus is the world; for Varro defined the true gods to\nbe the soul of the world, and the parts of it. And therefore whatever\nfalls not within this definition, is certainly not a true god,\naccording to them. Will they then say that Jupiter is the soul of\nthe world, and Janus the body--that is, this visible world? If they\nsay this, it will not be possible for them to affirm that Janus is\na god. For even, according to them, the body of the world is not a\ngod, but the soul of the world and its parts. Wherefore Varro, seeing\nthis, says that he thinks God is the soul of the world, and that\nthis world itself is God; but that as a wise man, though he consists\nof soul and body, is nevertheless called wise from the soul, so the\nworld is called God from the soul, though it consists of soul and\nbody. Therefore the body of the world alone is not God, but either\nthe soul of it alone, or the soul and the body together, yet so as\nthat it is God not by virtue of the body, but by virtue of the soul.\nIf, therefore, Janus is the world, and Janus is a god, will they say,\nin order that Jupiter may be a god, that he is some part of Janus?\nFor they are wont rather to attribute universal existence to Jupiter;\nwhence the saying, \"All things are full of Jupiter.\"[265] Therefore\nthey must think Jupiter also, in order that he may be a god, and\nespecially king of the gods, to be the world, that he may rule over\nthe other gods--according to them, his parts. To this effect, also,\nthe same Varro expounds certain verses of Valerius Soranus[266] in\nthat book which he wrote apart from the others concerning the worship\nof the gods. These are the verses:\n\n          \"Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,\n           And eke the mother of the gods, god one and all.\"\n\nBut in the same book he expounds these verses by saying that as the\nmale emits seed, and the female receives it, so Jupiter, whom they\nbelieved to be the world, both emits all seeds from himself and\nreceives them into himself. For which reason, he says, Soranus wrote,\n\"Jove, progenitor and mother;\" and with no less reason said that one\nand all were the same. For the world is one, and in that one are all\nthings.\n\n\n  10. _Whether the distinction between Janus and Jupiter is a proper\n                                 one._\n\nSince, therefore, Janus is the world, and Jupiter is the world,\nwherefore are Janus and Jupiter two gods, while the world is but one?\nWhy do they have separate temples, separate altars, different rites,\ndissimilar images? If it be because the nature of beginnings is one,\nand the nature of causes another, and the one has received the name\nof Janus, the other of Jupiter; is it then the case, that if one man\nhas two distinct offices of authority, or two arts, two judges or two\nartificers are spoken of, because the nature of the offices or the\narts is different? So also with respect to one god: if he have the\npower of beginnings and of causes, must he therefore be thought to be\ntwo gods, because beginnings and causes are two things? But if they\nthink that this is right, let them also affirm that Jupiter is as\nmany gods as they have given him surnames, on account of many powers;\nfor the things from which these surnames are applied to him are many\nand diverse. I shall mention a few of them.\n\n\n  11. _Concerning the surnames of Jupiter, which are referred not to\n               many gods, but to one and the same god._\n\nThey have called him Victor, Invictus, Opitulus, Impulsor, Stator,\nCentumpeda, Supinalis, Tigillus, Almus, Ruminus, and other names\nwhich it were long to enumerate. But these surnames they have given\nto one god on account of diverse causes and powers, but yet have not\ncompelled him to be, on account of so many things, as many gods. They\ngave him these surnames because he conquered all things; because he\nwas conquered by none; because he brought help to the needy; because\nhe had the power of impelling, stopping, stablishing, throwing on\nthe back; because as a beam[267] he held together and sustained the\nworld; because he nourished all things; because, like the pap,[268]\nhe nourished animals. Here, we perceive, are some great things and\nsome small things; and yet it is one who is said to perform them\nall. I think that the causes and the beginnings of things, on account\nof which they have thought that the one world is two gods, Jupiter\nand Janus, are nearer to each other than the holding together of the\nworld, and the giving of the pap to animals; and yet, on account\nof these two works so far apart from each other, both in nature\nand dignity, there has not been any necessity for the existence of\ntwo gods; but one Jupiter has been called, on account of the one\nTigillus, on account of the other Ruminus. I am unwilling to say\nthat the giving of the pap to sucking animals might have become Juno\nrather than Jupiter, especially when there was the goddess Rumina to\nhelp and to serve her in this work; for I think it may be replied\nthat Juno herself is nothing else than Jupiter, according to those\nverses of Valerius Soranus, where it has been said:\n\n          \"Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,\n           And eke the mother of the gods,\" etc.\n\nWhy, then, was he called Ruminus, when they who may perchance inquire\nmore diligently may find that he is also that goddess Rumina?\n\nIf, then, it was rightly thought unworthy of the majesty of the gods,\nthat in one ear of corn one god should have the care of the joint,\nanother that of the husk, how much more unworthy of that majesty is\nit, that one thing, and that of the lowest kind, even the giving of\nthe pap to animals that they may be nourished, should be under the\ncare of two gods, one of whom is Jupiter himself, the very king of\nall things, who does this not along with his own wife, but with some\nignoble Rumina (unless perhaps he himself is Rumina, being Ruminus\nfor males and Rumina for females)! I should certainly have said that\nthey had been unwilling to apply to Jupiter a feminine name, had he\nnot been styled in these verses \"progenitor and mother,\" and had I\nnot read among other surnames of his that of Pecunia [money], which\nwe found as a goddess among those petty deities, as I have already\nmentioned in the fourth book. But since both males and females have\nmoney [_pecuniam_], why has he not been called both Pecunius and\nPecunia? That is their concern.\n\n\n              12. _That Jupiter is also called Pecunia._\n\nHow elegantly they have accounted for this name! \"He is also called\nPecunia,\" say they, \"because all things belong to him.\" Oh how grand an\nexplanation of the name of a deity! Yes; he to whom all things belong\nis most meanly and most contumeliously called Pecunia. In comparison of\nall things which are contained by heaven and earth, what are all things\ntogether which are possessed by men under the name of money?[269] And\nthis name, forsooth, hath avarice given to Jupiter, that whoever was a\nlover of money might seem to himself to love not an ordinary god, but\nthe very king of all things himself. But it would be a far different\nthing if he had been called Riches. For riches are one thing, money\nanother. For we call rich the wise, the just, the good, who have either\nno money or very little. For they are more truly rich in possessing\nvirtue, since by it, even as respects things necessary for the body,\nthey are content with what they have. But we call the greedy poor,\nwho are always craving and always wanting. For they may possess ever\nso great an amount of money; but whatever be the abundance of that,\nthey are not able but to want. And we properly call God Himself rich;\nnot, however, in money, but in omnipotence. Therefore they who have\nabundance of money are called rich, but inwardly needy if they are\ngreedy. So also, those who have no money are called poor, but inwardly\nrich if they are wise.\n\nWhat, then, ought the wise man to think of this theology, in which\nthe king of the gods receives the name of that thing \"which no wise\nman has desired?\"[270] For had there been anything wholesomely\ntaught by this philosophy concerning eternal life, how much more\nappropriately would that god who is the ruler of the world have been\ncalled by them, not money, but wisdom, the love of which purges from\nthe filth of avarice, that is, of the love of money!\n\n\n   13. _That when it is expounded what Saturn is, what Genius is, it\n      comes to this, that both of them are shown to be Jupiter._\n\nBut why speak more of this Jupiter, with whom perchance all the\nrest are to be identified; so that, he being all, the opinion as to\nthe existence of many gods may remain as a mere opinion, empty of\nall truth? And they are all to be referred to him, if his various\nparts and powers are thought of as so many gods, or if the principle\nof mind which they think to be diffused through all things has\nreceived the names of many gods from the various parts which the\nmass of this visible world combines in itself, and from the manifold\nadministration of nature. For what is Saturn also? \"One of the\nprincipal gods,\" he says, \"who has dominion over all sowings.\" Does\nnot the exposition of the verses of Valerius Soranus teach that\nJupiter is the world, and that he emits all seeds from himself, and\nreceives them into himself?\n\nIt is he, then, with whom is the dominion of all sowings. What\nis Genius? \"He is the god who is set over, and has the power of\nbegetting, all things.\" Who else than the world do they believe to\nhave this power, to which it has been said:\n\n          \"Almighty Jove, progenitor and mother?\"\n\nAnd when in another place he says that Genius is the rational soul of\nevery one, and therefore exists separately in each individual, but\nthat the corresponding soul of the world is God, he just comes back\nto this same thing,--namely, that the soul of the world itself is to\nbe held to be, as it were, the universal genius. This, therefore, is\nwhat he calls Jupiter. For if every genius is a god, and the soul\nof every man a genius, it follows that the soul of every man is a\ngod. But if very absurdity compels even these theologists themselves\nto shrink from this, it remains that they call that genius god by\nspecial and pre-eminent distinction, whom they call the soul of the\nworld, and therefore Jupiter.\n\n\n           14. _Concerning the offices of Mercury and Mars._\n\nBut they have not found how to refer Mercury and Mars to any parts\nof the world, and to the works of God which are in the elements;\nand therefore they have set them at least over human works, making\nthem assistants in speaking and in carrying on wars. Now Mercury,\nif he has also the power of the speech of the gods, rules also over\nthe king of the gods himself, if Jupiter, as he receives from him\nthe faculty of speech, also speaks according as it is his pleasure\nto permit him--which surely is absurd; but if it is only the power\nover human speech which is held to be attributed to him, then we say\nit is incredible that Jupiter should have condescended to give the\npap not only to children, but also to beasts--from which he has been\nsurnamed Ruminus--and yet should have been unwilling that the care of\nour speech, by which we excel the beasts, should pertain to him. And\nthus speech itself both belongs to Jupiter, and is Mercury. But if\nspeech itself is said to be Mercury, as those things which are said\nconcerning him by way of interpretation show it to be;--for he is\nsaid to have been called Mercury, that is, he who runs between,[271]\nbecause speech runs between men: they say also that the Greeks call\nhim \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2, because speech, or interpretation, which certainly belongs\nto speech, is called by them \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1: also he is said to preside\nover payments, because speech passes between sellers and buyers:\nthe wings, too, which he has on his head and on his feet, they say,\nmean that speech passes winged through the air: he is also said to\nhave been called the messenger,[272] because by means of speech all\nour thoughts are expressed;[273]--if, therefore, speech itself is\nMercury, then, even by their own confession, he is not a god. But\nwhen they make to themselves gods of such as are not even demons, by\npraying to unclean spirits, they are possessed by such as are not\ngods, but demons. In like manner, because they have not been able\nto find for Mars any element or part of the world in which he might\nperform some works of nature of whatever kind, they have said that he\nis the god of war, which is a work of men, and that not one which is\nconsidered desirable by them. If, therefore, Felicitas should give\nperpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do. But if war itself is\nMars, as speech is Mercury, I wish it were as true that there were no\nwar to be falsely called a god, as it is true that it is not a god.\n\n   15. _Concerning certain stars which the pagans have called by the\n                         names of their gods._\n\nBut possibly these stars which have been called by their names are\nthese gods. For they call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a\ncertain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the\nnames of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them\nJupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet\nthey give to him no small property besides,--namely, all seeds. There\nalso is that brightest of them all which is called by them Venus,\nand yet they will have this same Venus to be also the moon:--not to\nmention how Venus and Juno are said by them to contend about that most\nbrilliant star, as though about another golden apple. For some say\nthat Lucifer belongs to Venus, and some to Juno. But, as usual, Venus\nconquers. For by far the greatest number assign that star to Venus, so\nmuch so that there is scarcely found one of them who thinks otherwise.\nBut since they call Jupiter the king of all, who will not laugh to see\nhis star so far surpassed in brilliancy by the star of Venus? For it\nought to have been as much more brilliant than the rest, as he himself\nis more powerful. They answer that it only appears so because it is\nhigher up, and very much farther away from the earth. If, therefore,\nits greater dignity has deserved a higher place, why is Saturn higher\nin the heavens than Jupiter? Was the vanity of the fable which made\nJupiter king not able to reach the stars? And has Saturn been permitted\nto obtain at least in the heavens, what he could not obtain in his own\nkingdom nor in the Capitol?\n\nBut why has Janus received no star? If it is because he is the world,\nand they are all in him, the world is also Jupiter's, and yet he has\none. Did Janus compromise his case as best he could, and instead of\nthe one star which he does not have among the heavenly bodies, accept\nso many faces on earth? Again, if they think that on account of the\nstars alone Mercury and Mars are parts of the world, in order that\nthey may be able to have them for gods, since speech and war are not\nparts of the world, but acts of men, how is it that they have made\nno altars, established no rites, built no temples for Aries, and\nTaurus, and Cancer, and Scorpio, and the rest which they number as\nthe celestial signs, and which consist not of single stars, but each\nof them of many stars, which also they say are situated above those\nalready mentioned in the highest part of the heavens, where a more\nconstant motion causes the stars to follow an undeviating course? And\nwhy have they not reckoned them as gods, I do not say among those\nselect gods, but not even among those, as it were, plebeian gods?\n\n\n   16. _Concerning Apollo and Diana, and the other select gods whom\n              they would have to be parts of the world._\n\nAlthough they would have Apollo to be a diviner and physician, they\nhave nevertheless given him a place as some part of the world. They\nhave said that he is also the sun; and likewise they have said that\nDiana, his sister, is the moon, and the guardian of roads. Whence\nalso they will have her be a virgin, because a road brings forth\nnothing. They also make both of them have arrows, because those two\nplanets send their rays from the heavens to the earth. They make\nVulcan to be the fire of the world; Neptune the waters of the world;\nFather Dis, that is, Orcus, the earthy and lowest part of the world.\nLiber and Ceres they set over seeds,--the former over the seeds of\nmales, the latter over the seeds of females; or the one over the\nfluid part of seed, but the other over the dry part. And all this\ntogether is referred to the world, that is, to Jupiter, who is called\n\"progenitor and mother,\" because he emitted all seeds from himself,\nand received them into himself. For they also make this same Ceres\nto be the Great Mother, who they say is none other than the earth,\nand call her also Juno. And therefore they assign to her the second\ncauses of things, notwithstanding that it has been said to Jupiter,\n\"progenitor and mother of the gods;\" because, according to them, the\nwhole world itself is Jupiter's. Minerva, also, because they set\nher over human arts, and did not find even a star in which to place\nher, has been said by them to be either the highest \u00e6ther, or even\nthe moon. Also Vesta herself they have thought to be the highest of\nthe goddesses, because she is the earth; although they have thought\nthat the milder fire of the world, which is used for the ordinary\npurposes of human life, not the more violent fire, such as belongs to\nVulcan, is to be assigned to her. And thus they will have all those\nselect gods to be the world and its parts,--some of them the whole\nworld, others of them its parts; the whole of it Jupiter,--its parts,\nGenius, Mater Magna, Sol and Luna, or rather Apollo and Diana, and so\non. And sometimes they make one god many things; sometimes one thing\nmany gods. Many things are one god in the case of Jupiter; for both\nthe whole world is Jupiter, and the sky alone is Jupiter, and the\nstar alone is said and held to be Jupiter. Juno also is mistress of\nsecond causes,--Juno is the air, Juno is the earth; and had she won\nit over Venus, Juno would have been the star. Likewise Minerva is the\nhighest \u00e6ther, and Minerva is likewise the moon, which they suppose\nto be in the lowest limit of the \u00e6ther. And also they make one thing\nmany gods in this way. The world is both Janus and Jupiter; also the\nearth is Juno, and Mater Magna, and Ceres.\n\n\n  17. _That even Varro himself pronounced his own opinions regarding\n                         the gods ambiguous._\n\nAnd the same is true with respect to all the rest, as is true with\nrespect to those things which I have mentioned for the sake of\nexample. They do not explain them, but rather involve them. They\nrush hither and thither, to this side or to that, according as they\nare driven by the impulse of erratic opinion; so that even Varro\nhimself has chosen rather to doubt concerning all things, than to\naffirm anything. For, having written the first of the three last\nbooks concerning the certain gods, and having commenced in the second\nof these to speak of the uncertain gods, he says: \"I ought not to\nbe censured for having stated in this book the doubtful opinions\nconcerning the gods. For he who, when he has read them, shall\nthink that they both ought to be, and can be, conclusively judged\nof, will do so himself. For my own part, I can be more easily led\nto doubt the things which I have written in the first book, than\nto attempt to reduce all the things I shall write in this one to\nany orderly system.\" Thus he makes uncertain not only that book,\nconcerning the uncertain gods, but also that other concerning the\ncertain gods. Moreover, in that third book concerning the select\ngods, after having exhibited by anticipation as much of the natural\ntheology as he deemed necessary, and when about to commence to\nspeak of the vanities and lying insanities of the civil theology,\nwhere he was not only without the guidance of the truth of things,\nbut was also pressed by the authority of tradition, he says: \"I\nwill write in this book concerning the public gods of the Roman\npeople, to whom they have dedicated temples, and whom they have\nconspicuously distinguished by many adornments; but, as Xenophon of\nColophon writes, I will state what I think, not what I am prepared to\nmaintain: it is for man to think those things, for God to know them.\"\n\nIt is not, then, an account of things comprehended and most certainly\nbelieved which he promised, when about to write those things which\nwere instituted by men. He only timidly promises an account of things\nwhich are but the subject of doubtful opinion. Nor, indeed, was it\npossible for him to affirm with the same certainty that Janus was the\nworld, and such like things; or to discover with the same certainty\nsuch things as how Jupiter was the son of Saturn, while Saturn was\nmade subject to him as king:--he could, I say, neither affirm nor\ndiscover such things with the same certainty with which he knew such\nthings as that the world existed, that the heavens and earth existed,\nthe heavens bright with stars, and the earth fertile through seeds;\nor with the same perfect conviction with which he believed that this\nuniversal mass of nature is governed and administered by a certain\ninvisible and mighty force.\n\n\n        18. _A more credible cause of the rise of pagan error._\n\nA far more credible account of these gods is given, when it is said\nthat they were men, and that to each one of them sacred rites and\nsolemnities were instituted, according to his particular genius,\nmanners, actions, circumstances; which rites and solemnities, by\ngradually creeping through the souls of men, which are like demons,\nand eager for things which yield them sport, were spread far and\nwide; the poets adorning them with lies, and false spirits seducing\nmen to receive them. For it is far more likely that some youth,\neither impious himself, or afraid of being slain by an impious\nfather, being desirous to reign, dethroned his father, than that\n(according to Varro's interpretation) Saturn was overthrown by his\nson Jupiter; for cause, which belongs to Jupiter, is before seed,\nwhich belongs to Saturn. For had this been so, Saturn would never\nhave been before Jupiter, nor would he have been the father of\nJupiter. For cause always precedes seed, and is never generated from\nseed. But when they seek to honour by natural interpretation most\nvain fables or deeds of men, even the acutest men are so perplexed\nthat we are compelled to grieve for their folly also.\n\n\n    19. _Concerning the interpretations which compose the reason of\n                        the worship of Saturn._\n\nThey said, says Varro, that Saturn was wont to devour all that\nsprang from him, because seeds returned to the earth from whence\nthey sprang. And when it is said that a lump of earth was put before\nSaturn to be devoured instead of Jupiter, it is signified, he says,\nthat before the art of ploughing was discovered, seeds were buried in\nthe earth by the hands of men. The earth itself, then, and not seeds,\nshould have been called Saturn, because it in a manner devours what\nit has brought forth, when the seeds which have sprung from it return\nagain into it. And what has Saturn's receiving of a lump of earth\ninstead of Jupiter to do with this, that the seeds were covered in\nthe soil by the hands of men? Was the seed kept from being devoured,\nlike other things, by being covered with the soil? For what they\nsay would imply that he who put on the soil took away the seed, as\nJupiter is said to have been taken away when the lump of soil was\noffered to Saturn instead of him, and not rather that the soil, by\ncovering the seed, only caused it to be devoured the more eagerly.\nThen, in that way, Jupiter is the seed, and not the cause of the\nseed, as was said a little before.\n\nBut what shall men do who cannot find anything wise to say, because\nthey are interpreting foolish things? Saturn has a pruning-knife. That,\nsays Varro, is on account of agriculture. Certainly in Saturn's reign\nthere as yet existed no agriculture, and therefore the former times\nof Saturn are spoken of, because, as the same Varro interprets the\nfables, the primeval men lived on those seeds which the earth produced\nspontaneously. Perhaps he received a pruning-knife when he had lost\nhis sceptre; that he who had been a king, and lived at ease during\nthe first part of his time, should become a laborious workman whilst\nhis son occupied the throne. Then he says that boys were wont to be\nimmolated to him by certain peoples, the Carthaginians for instance;\nand also that adults were immolated by some nations, for example the\nGauls--because, of all seeds, the human race is the best. What need\nwe say more concerning this most cruel vanity? Let us rather attend\nto and hold by this, that these interpretations are not carried up to\nthe true God,--a living, incorporeal, unchangeable nature, from whom a\nblessed life enduring for ever may be obtained,--but that they end in\nthings which are corporeal, temporal, mutable, and mortal. And whereas\nit is said in the fables that Saturn castrated his father C\u0153lus, this\nsignifies, says Varro, that the divine seed belongs to Saturn, and\nnot to C\u0153lus; for this reason, as far as a reason can be discovered,\nnamely, that in heaven[274] nothing is born from seed. But, lo! Saturn,\nif he is the son of C\u0153lus, is the son of Jupiter. For they affirm\ntimes without number, and that emphatically, that the heavens[275] are\nJupiter. Thus those things which come not of the truth, do very often,\nwithout being impelled by any one, themselves overthrow one another. He\nsays that Saturn was called \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which in the Greek tongue signifies\na space of time,[276] because, without that, seed cannot be productive.\nThese and many other things are said concerning Saturn, and they are\nall referred to seed. But Saturn surely, with all that great power,\nmight have sufficed for seed. Why are other gods demanded for it,\nespecially Liber and Libera, that is, Ceres?--concerning whom again,\nas far as seed is concerned, he says as many things as if he had said\nnothing concerning Saturn.\n\n\n            20. _Concerning the rites of Eleusinian Ceres_.\n\nNow among the rites of Ceres, those Eleusinian rites are much famed\nwhich were in the highest repute among the Athenians, of which Varro\noffers no interpretation except with respect to corn, which Ceres\ndiscovered, and with respect to Proserpine, whom Ceres lost, Orcus\nhaving carried her away. And this Proserpine herself, he says,\nsignifies the fecundity of seeds. But as this fecundity departed at\na certain season, whilst the earth wore an aspect of sorrow through\nthe consequent sterility, there arose an opinion that the daughter\nof Ceres, that is, fecundity itself, who was called Proserpine, from\n_proserpere_ (to creep forth, to spring), had been carried away by\nOrcus, and detained among the inhabitants of the nether world; which\ncircumstance was celebrated with public mourning. But since the same\nfecundity again returned, there arose joy because Proserpine had been\ngiven back by Orcus, and thus these rites were instituted. Then Varro\nadds, that many things are taught in the mysteries of Ceres which\nonly refer to the discovery of fruits.\n\n\n  21. _Concerning the shamefulness of the rites which are celebrated\n                         in honour of Liber_.\n\nNow as to the rites of Liber, whom they have set over liquid seeds,\nand therefore not only over the liquors of fruits, among which\nwine holds, so to speak, the primacy, but also over the seeds of\nanimals:--as to these rites, I am unwilling to undertake to show\nto what excess of turpitude they had reached, because that would\nentail a lengthened discourse, though I am not unwilling to do so\nas a demonstration of the proud stupidity of those who practise\nthem. Among other rites which I am compelled from the greatness\nof their number to omit, Varro says that in Italy, at the places\nwhere roads crossed each other, the rites of Liber were celebrated\nwith such unrestrained turpitude, that the private parts of a man\nwere worshipped in his honour. Nor was this abomination transacted\nin secret, that some regard at least might be paid to modesty,\nbut was openly and wantonly displayed. For during the festival of\nLiber, this obscene member, placed on a car, was carried with great\nhonour, first over the cross-roads in the country, and then into\nthe city. But in the town of Lavinium a whole month was devoted to\nLiber alone, during the days of which all the people gave themselves\nup to the most dissolute conversation, until that member had been\ncarried through the forum and brought to rest in its own place; on\nwhich unseemly member it was necessary that the most honourable\nmatron should place a wreath in the presence of all the people. Thus,\nforsooth, was the god Liber to be appeased in order to the growth of\nseeds. Thus was enchantment to be driven away from fields, even by a\nmatron's being compelled to do in public what not even a harlot ought\nto be permitted to do in a theatre, if there were matrons among the\nspectators. For these reasons, then, Saturn alone was not believed\nto be sufficient for seeds,--namely, that the impure mind might find\noccasions for multiplying the gods; and that, being righteously\nabandoned to uncleanness by the one true God, and being prostituted\nto the worship of many false gods, through an avidity for ever\ngreater and greater uncleanness, it should call these sacrilegious\nrites sacred things, and should abandon itself to be violated and\npolluted by crowds of foul demons.\n\n\n          22. _Concerning Neptune, and Salacia, and Venilia_.\n\nNow Neptune had Salacia to wife, who they say is the nether waters of\nthe sea. Wherefore was Venilia also joined to him? Was it not simply\nthrough the lust of the soul desiring a greater number of demons to\nwhom to prostitute itself, and not because this goddess was necessary\nto the perfection of their sacred rites? But let the interpretation\nof this illustrious theology be brought forward to restrain us from\nthis censuring by rendering a satisfactory reason. Venilia, says\nthis theology, is the wave which comes to the shore, Salacia the\nwave which returns into the sea. Why, then, are there two goddesses,\nwhen it is one wave which comes and returns? Certainly it is mad\nlust itself, which in its eagerness for many deities resembles the\nwaves which break on the shore. For though the water which goes is\nnot different from that which returns, still the soul which goes and\nreturns not is defiled by two demons, whom it has taken occasion by\nthis false pretext to invite. I ask thee, O Varro, and you who have\nread such works of learned men, and think ye have learned something\ngreat,--I ask you to interpret this, I do not say in a manner\nconsistent with the eternal and unchangeable nature which alone is\nGod, but only in a manner consistent with the doctrine concerning the\nsoul of the world and its parts, which ye think to be the true gods.\nIt is a somewhat more tolerable thing that ye have made that part of\nthe soul of the world which pervades the sea your god Neptune. Is\nthe wave, then, which comes to the shore and returns to the main,\ntwo parts of the world, or two parts of the soul of the world? Who\nof you is so silly as to think so? Why, then, have they made to you\ntwo goddesses? The only reason seems to be, that your wise ancestors\nhave provided, not that many gods should rule you, but that many\nof such demons as are delighted with those vanities and falsehoods\nshould possess you. But why has that Salacia, according to this\ninterpretation, lost the lower part of the sea, seeing that she was\nrepresented as subject to her husband? For in saying that she is the\nreceding wave, ye have put her on the surface. Was she enraged at her\nhusband for taking Venilia as a concubine, and thus drove him from\nthe upper part of the sea?\n\n\n  23. _Concerning the earth, which Varro affirms to be a goddess,\n      because that soul of the world which he thinks to be God\n      pervades also this lowest part of his body, and imparts to it a\n      divine force._\n\nSurely the earth, which we see full of its own living creatures, is\none; but for all that, it is but a mighty mass among the elements,\nand the lowest part of the world. Why, then, would they have it to\nbe a goddess? Is it because it is fruitful? Why, then, are not men\nrather held to be gods, who render it fruitful by cultivating it;\nbut though they plough it, do not adore it? But, say they, the part\nof the soul of the world which pervades it makes it a goddess. As\nif it were not a far more evident thing, nay, a thing which is not\ncalled in question, that there is a soul in man. And yet men are not\nheld to be gods, but (a thing to be sadly lamented), with wonderful\nand pitiful delusion, are subjected to those who are not gods, and\nthan whom they themselves are better, as the objects of deserved\nworship and adoration. And certainly the same Varro, in the book\nconcerning the select gods, affirms that there are three grades of\nsoul in universal nature. One which pervades all the living parts of\nthe body, and has not sensation, but only the power of life,--that\nprinciple which penetrates into the bones, nails, and hair. By this\nprinciple in the world trees are nourished, and grow without being\npossessed of sensation, and live in a manner peculiar to themselves.\nThe second grade of soul is that in which there is sensation. This\nprinciple penetrates into the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and the\norgans of sensation. The third grade of soul is the highest, and is\ncalled mind, where intelligence has its throne. This grade of soul no\nmortal creatures except man are possessed of. Now this part of the\nsoul of the world, Varro says, is called God, and in us is called\nGenius. And the stones and earth in the world, which we see, and\nwhich are not pervaded by the power of sensation, are, as it were,\nthe bones and nails of God. Again, the sun, moon, and stars, which we\nperceive, and by which He perceives, are His organs of perception.\nMoreover, the ether is His mind; and by the virtue which is in it,\nwhich penetrates into the stars, it also makes them gods; and because\nit penetrates through them into the earth, it makes it the goddess\nTellus, whence again it enters and permeates the sea and ocean,\nmaking them the god Neptune.\n\nLet him return from this, which he thinks to be natural theology,\nback to that from which he went out, in order to rest from the\nfatigue occasioned by the many turnings and windings of his path.\nLet him return, I say, let him return to the civil theology. I wish\nto detain him there a while. I have somewhat to say which has to do\nwith that theology. I am not yet saying, that if the earth and stones\nare similar to our bones and nails, they are in like manner devoid\nof intelligence, as they are devoid of sensation. Nor am I saying\nthat, if our bones and nails are said to have intelligence, because\nthey are in a man who has intelligence, he who says that the things\nanalogous to these in the world are gods, is as stupid as he is who\nsays that our bones and nails are men. We shall perhaps have occasion\nto dispute these things with the philosophers. At present, however, I\nwish to deal with Varro as a political theologian. For it is possible\nthat, though he may seem to have wished to lift up his head, as it\nwere, into the liberty of natural theology, the consciousness that\nthe book with which he was occupied was one concerning a subject\nbelonging to civil theology, may have caused him to relapse into the\npoint of view of that theology, and to say this in order that the\nancestors of his nation, and other states, might not be believed to\nhave bestowed on Neptune an irrational worship. What I am to say is\nthis: Since the earth is one, why has not that part of the soul of\nthe world which permeates the earth made it that one goddess which he\ncalls Tellus? But had it done so, what then had become of Orcus, the\nbrother of Jupiter and Neptune, whom they call Father Dis?[277] And\nwhere, in that case, had been his wife Proserpine, who, according to\nanother opinion given in the same book, is called, not the fecundity\nof the earth, but its lower part?[278] But if they say that part of\nthe soul of the world, when it permeates the upper part of the earth,\nmakes the god Father Dis, but when it pervades the nether part of the\nsame the goddess Proserpine; what, in that case, will that Tellus be?\nFor all that which she was has been divided into these two parts,\nand these two gods; so that it is impossible to find what to make or\nwhere to place her as a third goddess, except it be said that those\ndivinities Orcus and Proserpine are the one goddess Tellus, and that\nthey are not three gods, but one or two, whilst notwithstanding they\nare called three, held to be three, worshipped as three, having\ntheir own several altars, their own shrines, rites, images, priests,\nwhilst their own false demons also through these things defile the\nprostituted soul. Let this further question be answered: What part of\nthe earth does a part of the soul of the world permeate in order to\nmake the god Tellumo? No, says he; but the earth being one and the\nsame, has a double life,--the masculine, which produces seed, and\nthe feminine, which receives and nourishes the seed. Hence it has\nbeen called Tellus from the feminine principle, and Tellumo from the\nmasculine. Why, then, do the priests, as he indicates, perform divine\nservice to four gods, two others being added,--namely, to Tellus,\nTellumo, Altor, and Rusor? We have already spoken concerning Tellus\nand Tellumo. But why do they worship Altor?[279] Because, says he,\nall that springs of the earth is nourished by the earth. Wherefore do\nthey worship Rusor?[280] Because all things return back again to the\nplace whence they proceeded.\n\n\n  24. _Concerning the surnames of Tellus and their significations,\n      which, although they indicate many properties, ought not to have\n      established the opinion that there is a corresponding number of\n      gods._\n\nThe one earth, then, on account of this fourfold virtue, ought to\nhave had four surnames, but not to have been considered as four\ngods,--as Jupiter and Juno, though they have so many surnames, are\nfor all that only single deities,--for by all these surnames it\nis signified that a manifold virtue belongs to one god or to one\ngoddess; but the multitude of surnames does not imply a multitude of\ngods. But as sometimes even the vilest women themselves grow tired of\nthose crowds which they have sought after under the impulse of wicked\npassion, so also the soul, become vile, and prostituted to impure\nspirits, sometimes begins to loathe to multiply to itself gods to\nwhom to surrender itself to be polluted by them, as much as it once\ndelighted in so doing. For Varro himself, as if ashamed of that crowd\nof gods, would make Tellus to be one goddess. \"They say,\" says he,\n\"that whereas the one great mother has a tympanum, it is signified\nthat she is the orb of the earth; whereas she has towers on her head,\ntowns are signified; and whereas seats are fixed round about her, it\nis signified that whilst all things move, she moves not. And their\nhaving made the Galli to serve this goddess, signifies that they\nwho are in need of seed ought to follow the earth, for in it all\nseeds are found. By their throwing themselves down before her, it is\ntaught,\" he says, \"that they who cultivate the earth should not sit\nidle, for there is always something for them to do. The sound of the\ncymbals signifies the noise made by the throwing of iron utensils,\nand by men's hands, and all other noises connected with agricultural\noperations; and these cymbals are of brass, because the ancients used\nbrazen utensils in their agriculture before iron was discovered.\nThey place beside the goddess an unbound and tame lion, to show that\nthere is no kind of land so wild and so excessively barren as that it\nwould be profitless to attempt to bring it in and cultivate it.\" Then\nhe adds that, because they gave many names and surnames to mother\nTellus, it came to be thought that these signified many gods. \"They\nthink,\" says he, \"that Tellus is Ops, because the earth is improved\nby labour; Mother, because it brings forth much; Great, because it\nbrings forth seed; Proserpine, because fruits creep forth from it;\nVesta, because it is invested with herbs. And thus,\" says he, \"they\nnot at all absurdly identify other goddesses with the earth.\" If,\nthen, it is one goddess (though, if the truth were consulted, it is\nnot even that), why do they nevertheless separate it into many? Let\nthere be many names of one goddess, and let there not be as many\ngoddesses as there are names.\n\nBut the authority of the erring ancients weighs heavily on Varro, and\ncompels him, after having expressed this opinion, to show signs of\nuneasiness; for he immediately adds, \"With which things the opinion\nof the ancients, who thought that there were really many goddesses,\ndoes not conflict.\" How does it not conflict, when it is entirely a\ndifferent thing to say that one goddess has many names, and to say\nthat there are many goddesses? But it is possible, he says, that the\nsame thing may both be one, and yet have in it a plurality of things.\nI grant that there are many things in one man; are there therefore in\nhim many men? In like manner, in one goddess there are many things;\nare there therefore also many goddesses? But let them divide, unite,\nmultiply, reduplicate, and implicate as they like.\n\nThese are the famous mysteries of Tellus and the Great Mother, all of\nwhich are shown to have reference to mortal seeds and to agriculture.\nDo these things, then,--namely, the tympanum, the towers, the\nGalli, the tossing to and fro of limbs, the noise of cymbals, the\nimages of lions,--do these things, having this reference and this\nend, promise eternal life? Do the mutilated Galli, then, serve this\nGreat Mother in order to signify that they who are in need of seed\nshould follow the earth, as though it were not rather the case that\nthis very service caused them to want seed? For whether do they, by\nfollowing this goddess, acquire seed, being in want of it, or, by\nfollowing her, lose seed when they have it? Is this to interpret or\nto deprecate? Nor is it considered to what a degree malign demons\nhave gained the upper hand, inasmuch as they have been able to exact\nsuch cruel rites without having dared to promise any great things\nin return for them. Had the earth not been a goddess, men would\nhave, by labouring, laid their hands on _it_ in order to obtain seed\nthrough it, and would not have laid violent hands on themselves in\norder to lose seed on account of it. Had it not been a goddess, it\nwould have become so fertile by the hands of others, that it would\nnot have compelled a man to be rendered barren by his own hands;\nnor that in the festival of Liber an honourable matron put a wreath\non the private parts of a man in the sight of the multitude, where\nperhaps her husband was standing by blushing and perspiring, if there\nis any shame left in men; and that in the celebration of marriages\nthe newly-married bride was ordered to sit upon Priapus. These things\nare bad enough, but they are small and contemptible in comparison\nwith that most cruel abomination, or most abominable cruelty, by\nwhich either set is so deluded that neither perishes of its wound.\nThere the enchantment of fields is feared; here the amputation of\nmembers is not feared. There the modesty of the bride is outraged,\nbut in such a manner as that neither her fruitfulness nor even her\nvirginity is taken away; here a man is so mutilated that he is\nneither changed into a woman nor remains a man.\n\n\n      25. _The interpretation of the mutilation of Atys which the\n                doctrine of the Greek sages set forth._\n\nVarro has not spoken of that Atys, nor sought out any interpretation\nfor him, in memory of whose being loved by Ceres the Gallus is\nmutilated. But the learned and wise Greeks have by no means been silent\nabout an interpretation so holy and so illustrious. The celebrated\nphilosopher Porphyry has said that Atys signifies the flowers of\nspring, which is the most beautiful season, and therefore was mutilated\nbecause the flower falls before the fruit appears.[281] They have not,\nthen, compared the man himself, or rather that semblance of a man they\ncalled Atys, to the flower, but his male organs,--these, indeed, fell\nwhilst he was living. Did I say fell? nay, truly they did not fall, nor\nwere they plucked off, but torn away. Nor when that flower was lost\ndid any fruit follow, but rather sterility. What, then, do they say is\nsignified by the castrated Atys himself, and whatever remained to him\nafter his castration? To what do they refer that? What interpretation\ndoes that give rise to? Do they, after vain endeavours to discover\nan interpretation, seek to persuade men that that is rather to be\nbelieved which report has made public, and which has also been written\nconcerning his having been a mutilated man? Our Varro has very properly\nopposed this, and has been unwilling to state it; for it certainly was\nnot unknown to that most learned man.\n\n\n   26. _Concerning the abomination of the sacred rites of the Great\n                               Mother_.\n\nConcerning the effeminates consecrated to the same Great Mother, in\ndefiance of all the modesty which belongs to men and women, Varro has\nnot wished to say anything, nor do I remember to have read anywhere\naught concerning them. These effeminates, no later than yesterday,\nwere going through the streets and places of Carthage with anointed\nhair, whitened faces, relaxed bodies, and feminine gait, exacting from\nthe people the means of maintaining their ignominious lives. Nothing\nhas been said concerning them. Interpretation failed, reason blushed,\nspeech was silent. The Great Mother has surpassed all her sons, not\nin greatness of deity, but of crime. To this monster not even the\nmonstrosity of Janus is to be compared. His deformity was only in his\nimage; hers was the deformity of cruelty in her sacred rites. He has a\nredundancy of members in stone images; she inflicts the loss of members\non men. This abomination is not surpassed by the licentious deeds of\nJupiter, so many and so great. He, with all his seductions of women,\nonly disgraced heaven with one Ganymede; she, with so many avowed and\npublic effeminates, has both defiled the earth and outraged heaven.\nPerhaps we may either compare Saturn to this Magna Mater, or even set\nhim before her in this kind of abominable cruelty, for he mutilated his\nfather. But at the festivals of Saturn men could rather be slain by the\nhands of others than mutilated by their own. He devoured his sons, as\nthe poets say, and the natural theologists interpret this as they list.\nHistory says he slew them. But the Romans never received, like the\nCarthaginians, the custom of sacrificing their sons to him. This Great\nMother of the gods, however, has brought mutilated men into Roman\ntemples, and has preserved that cruel custom, being believed to promote\nthe strength of the Romans by emasculating their men. Compared with\nthis evil, what are the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus, and\nthe base and flagitious deeds of the rest of them, which we might bring\nforward from books, were it not that they are daily sung and danced in\nthe theatres? But what are these things to so great an evil,--an evil\nwhose magnitude was only proportioned to the greatness of the Great\nMother,--especially as these are said to have been invented by the\npoets? as if the poets had also invented this, that they are acceptable\nto the gods. Let it be imputed, then, to the audacity and impudence of\nthe poets that these things have been sung and written of. But that\nthey have been incorporated into the body of divine rites and honours,\nthe deities themselves demanding and extorting that incorporation,\nwhat is that but the crime of the gods? nay more, the confession of\ndemons and the deception of wretched men? But as to this, that the\nGreat Mother is considered to be worshipped in the appropriate form\nwhen she is worshipped by the consecration of mutilated men, this is\nnot an invention of the poets, nay, they have rather shrunk from it\nwith horror than sung of it. Ought any one, then, to be consecrated to\nthese select gods, that he may live blessedly after death, consecrated\nto whom he could not live decently before death, being subjected to\nsuch foul superstitions, and bound over to unclean demons? But all\nthese things, says Varro, are to be referred to the world.[282] Let\nhim consider if it be not rather to the unclean.[283] But why not\nrefer that to the world which is demonstrated to be in the world?\nWe, however, seek for a mind which, trusting to true religion, does\nnot adore the world as its god, but for the sake of God praises the\nworld as a work of God, and, purified from mundane defilements, comes\npure[284] to God Himself who founded the world.[285]\n\n\n  27. _Concerning the figments of the physical theologists, who\n      neither worship the true divinity, nor perform the worship\n      wherewith the true divinity should be served._\n\nWe see that these select gods have, indeed, become more famous than\nthe rest; not, however, that their merits may be brought to light,\nbut that their opprobrious deeds may not be hid. Whence it is more\ncredible that they were men, as not only poetic but also historical\nliterature has handed down. For this which Virgil says,\n\n          \"Then from Olympus' heights came down\n           Good Saturn, exiled from his throne\n           By Jove, his mightier heir;\"[286]\n\nand what follows with reference to this affair, is fully related\nby the historian Euhemerus, and has been translated into Latin by\nEnnius. And as they who have written before us in the Greek or in the\nLatin tongue against such errors as these have said much concerning\nthis matter, I have thought it unnecessary to dwell upon it. When I\nconsider those physical reasons, then, by which learned and acute men\nattempt to turn human things into divine things, all I see is that\nthey have been able to refer these things only to temporal works and\nto that which has a corporeal nature, and even though invisible still\nmutable; and this is by no means the true God. But if this worship\nhad been performed as the symbolism of ideas at least congruous\nwith religion, though it would indeed have been cause of grief that\nthe true God was not announced and proclaimed by its symbolism,\nnevertheless it could have been in some degree borne with, when\nit did not occasion and command the performance of such foul and\nabominable things. But since it is impiety to worship the body or the\nsoul for the true God, by whose indwelling alone the soul is happy,\nhow much more impious is it to worship those things through which\nneither soul nor body can obtain either salvation or human honour?\nWherefore if with temple, priest, and sacrifice, which are due to\nthe true God, any element of the world be worshipped, or any created\nspirit, even though not impure and evil, that worship is still evil,\nnot because the things are evil by which the worship is performed,\nbut because those things ought only to be used in the worship of\nHim to whom alone such worship and service are due. But if any one\ninsist that he worships the one true God,--that is, the Creator of\nevery soul and of every body,--with stupid and monstrous idols, with\nhuman victims, with putting a wreath on the male organ, with the\nwages of unchastity, with the cutting of limbs, with emasculation,\nwith the consecration of effeminates, with impure and obscene plays,\nsuch a one does not sin because he worships One who ought not to be\nworshipped, but because he worships Him who ought to be worshipped\nin a way in which He ought not to be worshipped. But he who worships\nwith such things,--that is, foul and obscene things,--and that not\nthe true God, namely, the maker of soul and body, but a creature,\neven though not a wicked creature, whether it be soul or body, or\nsoul and body together, twice sins against God, because he both\nworships for God what is not God, and also worships with such things\nas neither God nor what is not God ought to be worshipped with.\nIt is, indeed, manifest how these pagans worship,--that is, how\nshamefully and criminally they worship; but what or whom they worship\nwould have been left in obscurity, had not their history testified\nthat those same confessedly base and foul rites were rendered in\nobedience to the demands of the gods, who exacted them with terrible\nseverity. Wherefore it is evident beyond doubt that this whole civil\ntheology is occupied in inventing means for attracting wicked and\nmost impure spirits, inviting them to visit senseless images, and\nthrough these to take possession of stupid hearts.\n\n\n   28. _That the doctrine of Varro concerning theology is in no part\n                       consistent with itself_.\n\nTo what purpose, then, is it that this most learned and most acute\nman Varro attempts, as it were, with subtle disputation, to reduce\nand refer all these gods to heaven and earth? He cannot do it. They\ngo out of his hands like water; they shrink back; they slip down and\nfall. For when about to speak of the females, that is, the goddesses,\nhe says, \"Since, as I observed in the first book concerning places,\nheaven and earth are the two origins of the gods, on which account\nthey are called celestials and terrestrials, and as I began in the\nformer books with heaven, speaking of Janus, whom some have said to be\nheaven, and others the earth, so I now commence with Tellus in speaking\nconcerning the goddesses.\" I can understand what embarrassment so\ngreat a mind was experiencing. For he is influenced by the perception\nof a certain plausible resemblance, when he says that the heaven is\nthat which does, and the earth that which suffers, and therefore\nattributes the masculine principle to the one, and the feminine to\nthe other,--not considering that it is rather He who made both heaven\nand earth who is the maker of both activity and passivity. On this\nprinciple he interprets the celebrated mysteries of the Samothracians,\nand promises, with an air of great devoutness, that he will by writing\nexpound these mysteries, which have not been so much as known to his\ncountrymen, and will send them his exposition. Then he says that he\nhad from many proofs gathered that, in those mysteries, among the\nimages one signifies heaven, another the earth, another the patterns of\nthings, which Plato calls ideas. He makes Jupiter to signify heaven,\nJuno the earth, Minerva the ideas. Heaven, by which anything is made;\nthe earth, from which it is made; and the pattern, according to which\nit is made. But, with respect to the last, I am forgetting to say\nthat Plato attributed so great an importance to these ideas as to\nsay, not that anything was made by heaven according to them, but that\naccording to them heaven itself was made.[287] To return, however,--it\nis to be observed that Varro has, in the book on the select gods, lost\nthat theory of these gods, in whom he has, as it were, embraced all\nthings. For he assigns the male gods to heaven, the females to earth;\namong which latter he has placed Minerva, whom he had before placed\nabove heaven itself. Then the male god Neptune is in the sea, which\npertains rather to earth than to heaven. Last of all, father Dis, who\nis called in Greek \u03a0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, another male god, brother of both (Jupiter\nand Neptune), is also held to be a god of the earth, holding the\nupper region of the earth himself, and allotting the nether region to\nhis wife Proserpine. How, then, do they attempt to refer the gods to\nheaven, and the goddesses to earth? What solidity, what consistency,\nwhat sobriety has this disputation? But that Tellus is the origin\nof the goddesses,--the great mother, to wit, beside whom there is\ncontinually the noise of the mad and abominable revelry of effeminates\nand mutilated men, and men who cut themselves, and indulge in frantic\ngesticulations,--how is it, then, that Janus is called the head of\nthe gods, and Tellus the head of the goddesses? In the one case error\ndoes not make one head, and in the other frenzy does not make a sane\none. Why do they vainly attempt to refer these to the world? Even if\nthey could do so, no pious person worships the world for the true God.\nNevertheless, plain truth makes it evident that they are not able even\nto do this. Let them rather identify them with dead men and most wicked\ndemons, and no further question will remain.\n\n\n  29. _That all things which the physical theologists have referred\n      to the world and its parts, they ought to have referred to the\n      one true God_.\n\nFor all those things which, according to the account given of those\ngods, are referred to the world by so-called physical interpretation,\nmay, without any religious scruple, be rather assigned to the true\nGod, who made heaven and earth, and created every soul and every\nbody; and the following is the manner in which we see that this may\nbe done. We worship God,--not heaven and earth, of which two parts\nthis world consists, nor the soul or souls diffused through all\nliving things,--but God who made heaven and earth, and all things\nwhich are in them; who made every soul, whatever be the nature of its\nlife, whether it have life without sensation and reason, or life with\nsensation, or life with both sensation and reason.\n\n\n  30. _How piety distinguishes the Creator from the creatures, so\n      that, instead of one God, there are not worshipped as many gods\n      as there are works of the one author._\n\nAnd now, to begin to go over those works of the one true God, on\naccount of which these have made to themselves many and false gods,\nwhilst they attempt to give an honourable interpretation to their\nmany most abominable and most infamous mysteries,--we worship\nthat God who has appointed to the natures created by Him both the\nbeginnings and the end of their existing and moving; who holds,\nknows, and disposes the causes of things; who hath created the virtue\nof seeds; who hath given to what creatures He would a rational soul,\nwhich is called mind; who hath bestowed the faculty and use of\nspeech; who hath imparted the gift of foretelling future things to\nwhatever spirits it seemed to Him good; who also Himself predicts\nfuture things, through whom He pleases, and through whom He will\nremoves diseases; who, when the human race is to be corrected and\nchastised by wars, regulates also the beginnings, progress, and ends\nof these wars; who hath created and governs the most vehement and\nmost violent fire of this world, in due relation and proportion to\nthe other elements of immense nature; who is the governor of all the\nwaters; who hath made the sun brightest of all material lights, and\nhath given him suitable power and motion; who hath not withdrawn,\neven from the inhabitants of the nether world, His dominion and\npower; who hath appointed to mortal natures their suitable seed and\nnourishment, dry or liquid; who establishes and makes fruitful the\nearth; who bountifully bestows its fruits on animals and on men; who\nknows and ordains, not only principal causes, but also subsequent\ncauses; who hath determined for the moon her motion; who affords\nways in heaven and on earth for passage from one place to another;\nwho hath granted also to human minds, which He hath created, the\nknowledge of the various arts for the help of life and nature; who\nhath appointed the union of male and female for the propagation of\noffspring; who hath favoured the societies of men with the gift of\nterrestrial fire for the simplest and most familiar purposes, to burn\non the hearth and to give light. These are, then, the things which\nthat most acute and most learned man Varro has laboured to distribute\namong the select gods, by I know not what physical interpretation,\nwhich he has got from other sources, and also conjectured for\nhimself. But these things the one true God makes and does, but as\n_the same_ God,--that is, as He who is wholly everywhere, included\nin no space, bound by no chains, mutable in no part of His being,\nfilling heaven and earth with omnipresent power, not with a needy\nnature. Therefore He governs all things in such a manner as to\nallow them to perform and exercise their own proper movements. For\nalthough they can be nothing without Him, they are not what He is.\nHe does also many things through angels; but only from Himself does\nHe beatify angels. So also, though He send angels to men for certain\npurposes, He does not for all that beatify men by the good inherent\nin the angels, but by Himself, as He does the angels themselves.\n\n\n     31. _What benefits God gives to the followers of the truth to\n               enjoy over and above His general bounty._\n\nFor, besides such benefits as, according to this administration\nof nature of which we have made some mention, He lavishes on good\nand bad alike, we have from Him a great manifestation of great\nlove, which belongs only to the good. For although we can never\nsufficiently give thanks to Him, that we are, that we live, that we\nbehold heaven and earth, that we have mind and reason by which to\nseek after Him who made all these things, nevertheless, what hearts,\nwhat number of tongues, shall affirm that they are sufficient to\nrender thanks to Him for this, that He hath not wholly departed from\nus, laden and overwhelmed with sins, averse to the contemplation of\nHis light, and blinded by the love of darkness, that is, of iniquity,\nbut hath sent to us His own Word, who is His only Son, that by His\nbirth and suffering for us in the flesh, which He assumed, we might\nknow how much God valued man, and that by that unique sacrifice\nwe might be purified from all our sins, and that, love being shed\nabroad in our hearts by His Spirit, we might, having surmounted all\ndifficulties, come into eternal rest, and the ineffable sweetness of\nthe contemplation of Himself?\n\n\n  32. _That at no time in the past was the mystery of Christ's\n      redemption awanting, but was at all times declared, though in\n      various forms._\n\nThis mystery of eternal life, even from the beginning of the human\nrace, was, by certain signs and sacraments suitable to the times,\nannounced through angels to those to whom it was meet. Then the\nHebrew people was congregated into one republic, as it were, to\nperform this mystery; and in that republic was foretold, sometimes\nthrough men who understood what they spake, and sometimes through\nmen who understood not, all that had transpired since the advent of\nChrist until now, and all that will transpire. This same nation, too,\nwas afterwards dispersed through the nations, in order to testify\nto the scriptures in which eternal salvation in Christ had been\ndeclared. For not only the prophecies which are contained in words,\nnor only the precepts for the right conduct of life, which teach\nmorals and piety, and are contained in the sacred writings,--not\nonly these, but also the rites, priesthood, tabernacle or temple,\naltars, sacrifices, ceremonies, and whatever else belongs to that\nservice which is due to God, and which in Greek is properly called\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1,--all these signified and fore-announced those things which\nwe who believe in Jesus Christ unto eternal life believe to have been\nfulfilled, or behold in process of fulfilment, or confidently believe\nshall yet be fulfilled.\n\n\n  33. _That only through the Christian religion could the deceit of\n      malign spirits, who rejoice in the errors of men, have been\n      manifested._\n\nThis, the only true religion, has alone been able to manifest that\nthe gods of the nations are most impure demons, who desire to be\nthought gods, availing themselves of the names of certain defunct\nsouls, or the appearance of mundane creatures, and with proud\nimpurity rejoicing in things most base and infamous, as though in\ndivine honours, and envying human souls their conversion to the\ntrue God. From whose most cruel and most impious dominion a man is\nliberated when he believes on Him who has afforded an example of\nhumility, following which men may rise as great as was that pride\nby which they fell. Hence are not only those gods, concerning whom\nwe have already spoken much, and many others belonging to different\nnations and lands, but also those of whom we are now treating, who\nhave been selected as it were into the senate of the gods,--selected,\nhowever, on account of the notoriousness of their crimes, not on\naccount of the dignity of their virtues,--whose sacred things Varro\nattempts to refer to certain natural reasons, seeking to make base\nthings honourable, but cannot find how to square and agree with\nthese reasons, because these are not the causes of those rites,\nwhich he thinks, or rather wishes to be thought to be so. For had\nnot only these, but also all others of this kind, been real causes,\neven though they had nothing to do with the true God and eternal\nlife, which is to be sought in religion, they would, by affording\nsome sort of reason drawn from the nature of things, have mitigated\nin some degree that offence which was occasioned by some turpitude\nor absurdity in the sacred rites, which was not understood. This\nhe attempted to do in respect to certain fables of the theatres,\nor mysteries of the shrines; but he did not acquit the theatres\nof likeness to the shrines, but rather condemned the shrines for\nlikeness to the theatres. However, he in some way made the attempt to\nsoothe the feelings shocked by horrible things, by rendering what he\nwould have to be natural interpretations.\n\n\n  34. _Concerning the books of Numa Pompilius, which the senate\n      ordered to be burned, in order that the causes of sacred rites\n      therein assigned should not become known._.\n\nBut, on the other hand, we find, as the same most learned man has\nrelated, that the causes of the sacred rites which were given from\nthe books of Numa Pompilius could by no means be tolerated, and were\nconsidered unworthy, not only to become known to the religious by\nbeing read, but even to lie written in the darkness in which they had\nbeen concealed. For now let me say what I promised in the third book\nof this work to say in its proper place. For, as we read in the same\nVarro's book on the worship of the gods, \"A certain one Terentius had\na field at the Janiculum, and once, when his ploughman was passing\nthe plough near to the tomb of Numa Pompilius, he turned up from the\nground the books of Numa, in which were written the causes of the\nsacred institutions; which books he carried to the pr\u00e6tor, who, having\nread the beginnings of them, referred to the senate what seemed to\nbe a matter of so much importance. And when the chief senators had\nread certain of the causes why this or that rite was instituted, the\nsenate assented to the dead Numa, and the conscript fathers, as though\nconcerned for the interests of religion, ordered the pr\u00e6tor to burn\nthe books.\"[288] Let each one believe what he thinks; nay, let every\nchampion of such impiety say whatever mad contention may suggest. For\nmy part, let it suffice to suggest that the causes of those sacred\nthings which were written down by King Numa Pompilius, the institutor\nof the Roman rites, ought never to have become known to people or\nsenate, or even to the priests themselves; and also that Numa himself\nattained to these secrets of demons by an illicit curiosity, in order\nthat he might write them down, so as to be able, by reading, to be\nreminded of them. However, though he was king, and had no cause to\nbe afraid of any one, he neither dared to teach them to any one, nor\nto destroy them by obliteration, or any other form of destruction.\nTherefore, because he was unwilling that any one should know them,\nlest men should be taught infamous things, and because he was afraid\nto violate them, lest he should enrage the demons against himself, he\nburied them in what he thought a safe place, believing that a plough\ncould not approach his sepulchre. But the senate, fearing to condemn\nthe religious solemnities of their ancestors, and therefore compelled\nto assent to Numa, were nevertheless so convinced that those books were\npernicious, that they did not order them to be buried again, knowing\nthat human curiosity would thereby be excited to seek with far greater\neagerness after the matter already divulged, but ordered the scandalous\nrelics to be destroyed with fire; because, as they thought it was now\na necessity to perform those sacred rites, they judged that the error\narising from ignorance of their causes was more tolerable than the\ndisturbance which the knowledge of them would occasion the state.\n\n\n    35. _Concerning the hydromancy through which Numa was befooled\n            by certain images of demons seen in the water._\n\nFor Numa himself also, to whom no prophet of God, no holy angel\nwas sent, was driven to have recourse to hydromancy, that he might\nsee the images of the gods in the water (or, rather, appearances\nwhereby the demons made sport of him), and might learn from them\nwhat he ought to ordain and observe in the sacred rites. This kind\nof divination, says Varro, was introduced from the Persians, and\nwas used by Numa himself, and at an after time by the philosopher\nPythagoras. In this divination, he says, they also inquire at the\ninhabitants of the nether world, and make use of blood; and this\nthe Greeks call \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. But whether it be called necromancy\nor hydromancy it is the same thing, for in either case the dead are\nsupposed to foretell future things. But by what artifices these\nthings are done, let themselves consider; for I am unwilling to say\nthat these artifices were wont to be prohibited by the laws, and to\nbe very severely punished even in the Gentile states, before the\nadvent of our Saviour. I am unwilling, I say, to affirm this, for\nperhaps even such things were then allowed. However, it was by these\narts that Pompilius learned those sacred rites which he gave forth\nas facts, whilst he concealed their causes; for even he himself was\nafraid of that which he had learned. The senate also caused the\nbooks in which those causes were recorded to be burned. What is it,\nthen, to me, that Varro attempts to adduce all sorts of fanciful\nphysical interpretations, which if these books had contained, they\nwould certainly not have been burned? For otherwise the conscript\nfathers would also have burned those books which Varro published\nand dedicated to the high priest C\u00e6sar.[289] Now Numa is said to\nhave married the nymph Egeria, because (as Varro explains it in the\nforementioned book) he carried forth[290] water wherewith to perform\nhis hydromancy. Thus facts are wont to be converted into fables\nthrough false colourings. It was by that hydromancy, then, that that\nover-curious Roman king learned both the sacred rites which were\nto be written in the books of the priests, and also the causes of\nthose rites,--which latter, however, he was unwilling that any one\nbesides himself should know. Wherefore he made these causes, as it\nwere, to die along with himself, taking care to have them written by\nthemselves, and removed from the knowledge of men by being buried in\nthe earth. Wherefore the things which are written in those books were\neither abominations of demons, so foul and noxious as to render that\nwhole civil theology execrable even in the eyes of such men as those\nsenators, who had accepted so many shameful things in the sacred\nrites themselves, or they were nothing else than the accounts of dead\nmen, whom, through the lapse of ages, almost all the Gentile nations\nhad come to believe to be immortal gods; whilst those same demons\nwere delighted even with such rites, having presented themselves to\nreceive worship under pretence of being those very dead men whom\nthey had caused to be thought immortal gods by certain fallacious\nmiracles, performed in order to establish that belief. But, by the\nhidden providence of the true God, these demons were permitted to\nconfess these things to their friend Numa, having been gained by\nthose arts through which necromancy could be performed, and yet were\nnot constrained to admonish him rather at his death to burn than to\nbury the books in which they were written. But, in order that these\nbooks might be unknown, the demons could not resist the plough by\nwhich they were thrown up, or the pen of Varro, through which the\nthings which were done in reference to this matter have come down\neven to our knowledge. For they are not able to effect anything which\nthey are not allowed; but they are permitted to influence those whom\nGod, in His deep and just judgment, according to their deserts, gives\nover either to be simply afflicted by them, or to be also subdued and\ndeceived. But how pernicious these writings were judged to be, or\nhow alien from the worship of the true Divinity, may be understood\nfrom the fact that the senate preferred to burn what Pompilius had\nhid, rather than to fear what he feared, so that he could not dare to\ndo that. Wherefore let him who does not desire to live a pious life\neven now, seek eternal life by means of such rites. But let him who\ndoes not wish to have fellowship with malign demons have no fear for\nthe noxious superstition wherewith they are worshipped, but let him\nrecognise the true religion by which they are unmasked and vanquished.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[245] Tert. _Apol._ 13, \"Nec electio sine reprobatione;\" and _Ad\nNationes_, ii. 9, \"Si dei ut bulbi seliguntur, qui non seliguntur,\nreprobi pronuntiantur.\"\n\n[246] Cicero, _De Nat. Deor._ ii., distinguishes this Liber from\nLiber Bacchus, son of Jupiter and Semele.\n\n[247] _Januam._\n\n[248] _Vivificator._\n\n[249] _Sensificator._\n\n[250] As we say, \"right-minded.\"\n\n[251] Ch. 21, 23.\n\n[252] The father Saturn, and the mother Ops, _e.g._, being more\nobscure than their son Jupiter and daughter Juno.\n\n[253] Sallust, _Cat. Conj._ ch. 8.\n\n[254] Vicus argentarius.\n\n[255] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, viii. 357, 358.\n\n[256] Quadrifrons.\n\n[257] Frons.\n\n[258] \"Quanto iste innocentior esset, tanto frontosior appareret;\"\nbeing used for the shamelessness of innocence, as we use \"face\" for\nthe shamelessness of impudence.\n\n[259] Cicero, _Tusc. Qu\u00e6st._ v. 13.\n\n[260] An interesting account of the changes made in the Roman year by\nNuma is given in Plutarch's life of that king. Ovid also (_Fasti_,\nii.) explains the derivation of February, telling us that it was the\nlast month of the old year, and took its name from the lustrations\nperformed then: \"Februa Romani dixere piamina patres.\"\n\n[261] Ennius, in Cicero, _De Nat. Deor._ ii. 18.\n\n[262] John x. 9.\n\n[263] _Georgic_, ii. 470.\n\n[264] _Summa_, which also includes the meaning \"last.\"\n\n[265] Virgil, _Eclog._ iii. 60, who borrows the expression from the\n_Ph\u00e6nomena_ of Aratus.\n\n[266] Soranus lived about B.C. 100. See Smith's _Dict._\n\n[267] Tigillus.\n\n[268] Ruma.\n\n[269] \"Pecunia,\" that is, property; the original meaning of \"pecunia\"\nbeing property in cattle, then property or wealth of any kind. Comp.\nAugustine, _De discipl. Christ._ 6.\n\n[270] Sallust, _Catil._ c. 11.\n\n[271] Quasi medius currens.\n\n[272] Nuncius.\n\n[273] Enunciantur.\n\n[274] C\u0153lo.\n\n[275] C\u0153lum.\n\n[276] Sc. \u03a7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[277] See c. 16.\n\n[278] Varro, _De Ling. Lat._ v. 68.\n\n[279] Nourisher.\n\n[280] Returner.\n\n[281] In the book _De Ratione Naturali Deorum_.\n\n[282] Mundum.\n\n[283] Immundum.\n\n[284] Mundus.\n\n[285] Mundum.\n\n[286] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, viii. 319-20.\n\n[287] In the _Tim\u00e6us_.\n\n[288] Plutarch's _Numa_; Livy, xl. 29.\n\n[289] Comp. Lactantius, _Instit._ i. 6.\n\n[290] Egesserit.\n\n\n\n\n                             BOOK EIGHTH.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  AUGUSTINE COMES NOW TO THE THIRD KIND OF THEOLOGY, THAT IS, THE\n      NATURAL, AND TAKES UP THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE WORSHIP OF THE\n      GODS OF THE NATURAL THEOLOGY IS OF ANY AVAIL TOWARDS SECURING\n      BLESSEDNESS IN THE LIFE TO COME. THIS QUESTION HE PREFERS TO\n      DISCUSS WITH THE PLATONISTS, BECAUSE THE PLATONIC SYSTEM IS\n      \"FACILE PRINCEPS\" AMONG PHILOSOPHIES, AND MAKES THE NEAREST\n      APPROXIMATION TO CHRISTIAN TRUTH. IN PURSUING THIS ARGUMENT, HE\n      FIRST REFUTES APULEIUS, AND ALL WHO MAINTAIN THAT THE DEMONS\n      SHOULD BE WORSHIPPED AS MESSENGERS AND MEDIATORS BETWEEN GODS\n      AND MEN; DEMONSTRATING THAT BY NO POSSIBILITY CAN MEN BE\n      RECONCILED TO GOOD GODS BY DEMONS, WHO ARE THE SLAVES OF VICE,\n      AND WHO DELIGHT IN AND PATRONIZE WHAT GOOD AND WISE MEN ABHOR\n      AND CONDEMN,--THE BLASPHEMOUS FICTIONS OF POETS, THEATRICAL\n      EXHIBITIONS, AND MAGICAL ARTS.\n\n\n   1. _That the question of natural theology is to be discussed with\n        those philosophers who sought a more excellent wisdom_.\n\nWe shall require to apply our mind with far greater intensity to the\npresent question than was requisite in the solution and unfolding\nof the questions handled in the preceding books; for it is not with\nordinary men, but with philosophers that we must confer concerning the\ntheology which they call natural. For it is not like the fabulous, that\nis, the theatrical; nor the civil, that is, the urban theology: the one\nof which displays the crimes of the gods, whilst the other manifests\ntheir criminal desires, which demonstrate them to be rather malign\ndemons than gods. It is, we say, with philosophers we have to confer\nwith respect to this theology,--men whose very name, if rendered into\nLatin, signifies those who profess the love of wisdom. Now, if wisdom\nis God, who made all things, as is attested by the divine authority and\ntruth,[291] then the philosopher is a lover of God. But since the thing\nitself, which is called by this name, exists not in all who glory in\nthe name,--for it does not follow, of course, that all who are called\nphilosophers are lovers of true wisdom,--we must needs select from\nthe number of those with whose opinions we have been able to acquaint\nourselves by reading, some with whom we may not unworthily engage in\nthe treatment of this question. For I have not in this work undertaken\nto refute all the vain opinions of the philosophers, but only such as\npertain to theology, which Greek word we understand to mean an account\nor explanation of the divine nature. Nor, again, have I undertaken to\nrefute all the vain theological opinions of all the philosophers, but\nonly of such of them as, agreeing in the belief that there is a divine\nnature, and that this divine nature is concerned about human affairs,\ndo nevertheless deny that the worship of the one unchangeable God is\nsufficient for the obtaining of a blessed life after death, as well\nas at the present time; and hold that, in order to obtain that life,\nmany gods, created, indeed, and appointed to their several spheres by\nthat one God, are to be worshipped. These approach nearer to the truth\nthan even Varro; for, whilst he saw no difficulty in extending natural\ntheology in its entirety even to the world and the soul of the world,\nthese acknowledge God as existing above all that is of the nature of\nsoul, and as the Creator not only of this visible world, which is often\ncalled heaven and earth, but also of every soul whatsoever, and as Him\nwho gives blessedness to the rational soul,--of which kind is the human\nsoul,--by participation in His own unchangeable and incorporeal light.\nThere is no one, who has even a slender knowledge of these things, who\ndoes not know of the Platonic philosophers, who derive their name from\ntheir master Plato. Concerning this Plato, then, I will briefly state\nsuch things as I deem necessary to the present question, mentioning\nbeforehand those who preceded him in time in the same department of\nliterature.\n\n\n     2. _Concerning the two schools of philosophers, that is, the\n                Italic and Ionic, and their founders._\n\nAs far as concerns the literature of the Greeks, whose language holds a\nmore illustrious place than any of the languages of the other nations,\nhistory mentions two schools of philosophers, the one called the Italic\nschool, originating in that part of Italy which was formerly called\nMagna Gr\u00e6cia; the other called the Ionic school, having its origin in\nthose regions which are still called by the name of Greece. The Italic\nschool had for its founder Pythagoras of Samos, to whom also the term\n\"philosophy\" is said to owe its origin. For whereas formerly those who\nseemed to excel others by the laudable manner in which they regulated\ntheir lives were called sages, Pythagoras, on being asked what he\nprofessed, replied that he was a philosopher, that is, a student or\nlover of wisdom; for it seemed to him to be the height of arrogance to\nprofess oneself a sage.[292] The founder of the Ionic school, again,\nwas Thales of Miletus, one of those seven who were styled the \"seven\nsages,\" of whom six were distinguished by the kind of life they lived,\nand by certain maxims which they gave forth for the proper conduct of\nlife. Thales was distinguished as an investigator into the nature of\nthings; and, in order that he might have successors in his school, he\ncommitted his dissertations to writing. That, however, which especially\nrendered him eminent was his ability, by means of astronomical\ncalculations, even to predict eclipses of the sun and moon. He thought,\nhowever, that water was the first principle of things, and that of it\nall the elements of the world, the world itself, and all things which\nare generated in it, ultimately consist. Over all this work, however,\nwhich, when we consider the world, appears so admirable, he set nothing\nof the nature of divine mind. To him succeeded Anaximander, his pupil,\nwho held a different opinion concerning the nature of things; for he\ndid not hold that all things spring from one principle, as Thales\ndid, who held that principle to be water, but thought that each thing\nsprings from its own proper principle. These principles of things he\nbelieved to be infinite in number, and thought that they generated\ninnumerable worlds, and all the things which arise in them. He thought,\nalso, that these worlds are subject to a perpetual process of alternate\ndissolution and regeneration, each one continuing for a longer or\nshorter period of time, according to the nature of the case; nor did\nhe, any more than Thales, attribute anything to a divine mind in the\nproduction of all this activity of things. Anaximander left as his\nsuccessor his disciple Anaximenes, who attributed all the causes of\nthings to an infinite air. He neither denied nor ignored the existence\nof gods, but, so far from believing that the air was made by them,\nhe held, on the contrary, that they sprang from the air. Anaxagoras,\nhowever, who was his pupil, perceived that a divine mind was the\nproductive cause of all things which we see, and said that all the\nvarious kinds of things, according to their several modes and species,\nwere produced out of an infinite matter consisting of homogeneous\nparticles, but by the efficiency of a divine mind. Diogenes, also,\nanother pupil of Anaximenes, said that a certain air was the original\nsubstance of things out of which all things were produced, but that\nit was possessed of a divine reason, without which nothing could be\nproduced from it. Anaxagoras was succeeded by his disciple Archelaus,\nwho also thought that all things consisted of homogeneous particles,\nof which each particular thing was made, but that those particles were\npervaded by a divine mind, which perpetually energized all the eternal\nbodies, namely, those particles, so that they are alternately united\nand separated. Socrates, the master of Plato, is said to have been the\ndisciple of Archelaus; and on Plato's account it is that I have given\nthis brief historical sketch of the whole history of these schools.\n\n\n                   3. _Of the Socratic philosophy._\n\nSocrates is said to have been the first who directed the entire\neffort of philosophy to the correction and regulation of manners, all\nwho went before him having expended their greatest efforts in the\ninvestigation of physical, that is, natural phenomena. However, it\nseems to me that it cannot be certainly discovered whether Socrates\ndid this because he was wearied of obscure and uncertain things,\nand so wished to direct his mind to the discovery of something\nmanifest and certain, which was necessary in order to the obtaining\nof a blessed life,--that one great object toward which the labour,\nvigilance, and industry of all philosophers seem to have been\ndirected,--or whether (as some yet more favourable to him suppose)\nhe did it because he was unwilling that minds defiled with earthly\ndesires should essay to raise themselves upward to divine things. For\nhe saw that the causes of things were sought for by them,--which\ncauses he believed to be ultimately reducible to nothing else than\nthe will of the one true and supreme God,--and on this account he\nthought they could only be comprehended by a purified mind; and\ntherefore that all diligence ought to be given to the purification of\nthe life by good morals, in order that the mind, delivered from the\ndepressing weight of lusts, might raise itself upward by its native\nvigour to eternal things, and might, with purified understanding,\ncontemplate that nature which is incorporeal and unchangeable light,\nwhere live the causes of all created natures. It is evident, however,\nthat he hunted out and pursued, with a wonderful pleasantness of\nstyle and argument, and with a most pointed and insinuating urbanity,\nthe foolishness of ignorant men, who thought that they knew this\nor that,--sometimes confessing his own ignorance, and sometimes\ndissimulating his knowledge, even in those very moral questions to\nwhich he seems to have directed the whole force of his mind. And\nhence there arose hostility against him, which ended in his being\ncalumniously impeached, and condemned to death. Afterwards, however,\nthat very city of the Athenians, which had publicly condemned him,\ndid publicly bewail him,--the popular indignation having turned\nwith such vehemence on his accusers, that one of them perished by\nthe violence of the multitude, whilst the other only escaped a like\npunishment by voluntary and perpetual exile.\n\nIllustrious, therefore, both in his life and in his death, Socrates\nleft very many disciples of his philosophy, who vied with one another\nin desire for proficiency in handling those moral questions which\nconcern the chief good (_summum bonum_), the possession of which can\nmake a man blessed; and because, in the disputations of Socrates,\nwhere he raises all manner of questions, makes assertions, and then\ndemolishes them, it did not evidently appear what he held to be the\nchief good, every one took from these disputations what pleased him\nbest, and every one placed the final good[293] in whatever it appeared\nto himself to consist. Now, that which is called the final good is\nthat at which, when one has arrived, he is blessed. But so diverse\nwere the opinions held by those followers of Socrates concerning this\nfinal good, that (a thing scarcely to be credited with respect to the\nfollowers of one master) some placed the chief good in pleasure, as\nAristippus, others in virtue, as Antisthenes. Indeed, it were tedious\nto recount the various opinions of various disciples.\n\n\n   4. _Concerning Plato, the chief among the disciples of Socrates,\n              and his threefold division of philosophy._\n\nBut, among the disciples of Socrates, Plato was the one who shone with\na glory which far excelled that of the others, and who not unjustly\neclipsed them all. By birth an Athenian of honourable parentage, he\nfar surpassed his fellow-disciples in natural endowments, of which\nhe was possessed in a wonderful degree. Yet, deeming himself and the\nSocratic discipline far from sufficient for bringing philosophy to\nperfection, he travelled as extensively as he was able, going to every\nplace famed for the cultivation of any science of which he could make\nhimself master. Thus he learned from the Egyptians whatever they held\nand taught as important; and from Egypt, passing into those parts of\nItaly which were filled with the fame of the Pythagoreans, he mastered,\nwith the greatest facility, and under the most eminent teachers,\nall the Italic philosophy which was then in vogue. And, as he had a\npeculiar love for his master Socrates, he made him the speaker in\nall his dialogues, putting into his mouth whatever he had learned,\neither from others, or from the efforts of his own powerful intellect,\ntempering even his moral disputations with the grace and politeness of\nthe Socratic style. And, as the study of wisdom consists in action and\ncontemplation, so that one part of it may be called active, and the\nother contemplative,--the active part having reference to the conduct\nof life, that is, to the regulation of morals, and the contemplative\npart to the investigation into the causes of nature and into pure\ntruth,--Socrates is said to have excelled in the active part of that\nstudy, while Pythagoras gave more attention to its contemplative part,\non which he brought to bear all the force of his great intellect. To\nPlato is given the praise of having perfected philosophy by combining\nboth parts into one. He then divides it into three parts,--the first\nmoral, which is chiefly occupied with action; the second natural,\nof which the object is contemplation; and the third rational, which\ndiscriminates between the true and the false. And though this last\nis necessary both to action and contemplation, it is contemplation,\nnevertheless, which lays peculiar claim to the office of investigating\nthe nature of truth. Thus this tripartite division is not contrary\nto that which made the study of wisdom to consist in action and\ncontemplation. Now, as to what Plato thought with respect to each of\nthese parts,--that is, what he believed to be the end of all actions,\nthe cause of all natures, and the light of all intelligences,--it\nwould be a question too long to discuss, and about which we ought\nnot to make any rash affirmation. For, as Plato liked and constantly\naffected the well-known method of his master Socrates, namely, that of\ndissimulating his knowledge or his opinions, it is not easy to discover\nclearly what he himself thought on various matters, any more than\nit is to discover what were the real opinions of Socrates. We must,\nnevertheless, insert into our work certain of those opinions which he\nexpresses in his writings, whether he himself uttered them, or narrates\nthem as expressed by others, and seems himself to approve of,--opinions\nsometimes favourable to the true religion, which our faith takes up\nand defends, and sometimes contrary to it, as, for example, in the\nquestions concerning the existence of one God or of many, as it relates\nto the truly blessed life which is to be after death. For those who are\npraised as having most closely followed Plato, who is justly preferred\nto all the other philosophers of the Gentiles, and who are said to have\nmanifested the greatest acuteness in understanding him, do perhaps\nentertain such an idea of God as to admit that in Him are to be found\nthe cause of existence, the ultimate reason for the understanding,\nand the end in reference to which the whole life is to be regulated.\nOf which three things, the first is understood to pertain to the\nnatural, the second to the rational, and the third to the moral part of\nphilosophy. For if man has been so created as to attain, through that\nwhich is most excellent in him, to that which excels all things,--that\nis, to the one true and absolutely good God, without whom no nature\nexists, no doctrine instructs, no exercise profits,--let Him be sought\nin whom all things are secure to us, let Him be discovered in whom all\ntruth becomes certain to us, let Him be loved in whom all becomes right\nto us.\n\n\n  5. _That it is especially with the Platonists that we must carry\n      on our disputations on matters of theology, their opinions\n      being preferable to those of all other philosophers._\n\nIf, then, Plato defined the wise man as one who imitates, knows,\nloves this God, and who is rendered blessed through fellowship with\nHim in His own blessedness, why discuss with the other philosophers?\nIt is evident that none come nearer to us than the Platonists.\nTo them, therefore, let that fabulous theology give place which\ndelights the minds of men with the crimes of the gods; and that\ncivil theology also, in which impure demons, under the name of\ngods, have seduced the peoples of the earth given up to earthly\npleasures, desiring to be honoured by the errors of men, and, by\nfilling the minds of their worshippers with impure desires, exciting\nthem to make the representation of their crimes one of the rites of\ntheir worship, whilst they themselves found in the spectators of\nthese exhibitions a most pleasing spectacle,--a theology in which,\nwhatever was honourable in the temple, was defiled by its mixture\nwith the obscenity of the theatre, and whatever was base in the\ntheatre was vindicated by the abominations of the temples. To these\nphilosophers also the interpretations of Varro must give place, in\nwhich he explains the sacred rites as having reference to heaven and\nearth, and to the seeds and operations of perishable things; for,\nin the first place, those rites have not the signification which\nhe would have men believe is attached to them, and therefore truth\ndoes not follow him in his attempt so to interpret them; and even\nif they had this signification, still those things ought not to be\nworshipped by the rational soul as its god which are placed below\nit in the scale of nature, nor ought the soul to prefer to itself\nas gods things to which the true God has given it the preference.\nThe same must be said of those writings pertaining to the sacred\nrites, which Numa Pompilius took care to conceal by causing them to\nbe buried along with himself, and which, when they were afterwards\nturned up by the plough, were burned by order of the senate. And, to\ntreat Numa with all honour, let us mention as belonging to the same\nrank as these writings that which Alexander of Macedon wrote to his\nmother as communicated to him by Leo, an Egyptian high priest. In\nthis letter not only Picus and Faunus, and \u00c6neas and Romulus, or even\nHercules and \u00c6sculapius and Liber, born of Semele, and the twin sons\nof Tyndareus, or any other mortals who have been deified, but even\nthe principal gods themselves,[294] to whom Cicero, in his Tusculan\nquestions,[295] alludes without mentioning their names, Jupiter,\nJuno, Saturn, Vulcan, Vesta, and many others whom Varro attempts to\nidentify with the parts or the elements of the world, are shown to\nhave been men. There is, as we have said, a similarity between this\ncase and that of Numa; for, the priest being afraid because he had\nrevealed a mystery, earnestly begged of Alexander to command his\nmother to burn the letter which conveyed these communications to her.\nLet these two theologies, then, the fabulous and the civil, give\nplace to the Platonic philosophers, who have recognised the true God\nas the author of all things, the source of the light of truth, and\nthe bountiful bestower of all blessedness. And not these only, but\nto these great acknowledgers of so great a God, those philosophers\nmust yield who, having their mind enslaved to their body, supposed\nthe principles of all things to be material; as Thales, who held that\nthe first principle of all things was water; Anaximenes, that it\nwas air; the Stoics, that it was fire; Epicurus, who affirmed that\nit consisted of atoms, that is to say, of minute corpuscules; and\nmany others whom it is needless to enumerate, but who believed that\nbodies, simple or compound, animate or inanimate, but nevertheless\nbodies, were the cause and principle of all things. For some of\nthem--as, for instance, the Epicureans--believed that living things\ncould originate from things without life; others held that all things\nliving or without life spring from a living principle, but that,\nnevertheless, all things, being material, spring from a material\nprinciple. For the Stoics thought that fire, that is, one of the four\nmaterial elements of which this visible world is composed, was both\nliving and intelligent, the maker of the world and of all things\ncontained in it,--that it was in fact God. These and others like\nthem have only been able to suppose that which their hearts enslaved\nto sense have vainly suggested to them. And yet they have within\nthemselves something which they could not see: they represented\nto themselves inwardly things which they had seen without, even\nwhen they were not seeing them, but only thinking of them. But\nthis representation in thought is no longer a body, but only the\nsimilitude of a body; and that faculty of the mind by which this\nsimilitude of a body is seen is neither a body nor the similitude of\na body; and the faculty which judges whether the representation is\nbeautiful or ugly is without doubt superior to the object judged of.\nThis principle is the understanding of man, the rational soul; and\nit is certainly not a body, since that similitude of a body which\nit beholds and judges of is itself not a body. The soul is neither\nearth, nor water, nor air, nor fire, of which four bodies, called the\nfour elements, we see that this world is composed. And if the soul\nis not a body, how should God, its Creator, be a body? Let all those\nphilosophers, then, give place, as we have said, to the Platonists,\nand those also who have been ashamed to say that God is a body, but\nyet have thought that our souls are of the same nature as God. They\nhave not been staggered by the great changeableness of the soul,--an\nattribute which it would be impious to ascribe to the divine\nnature,--but they say it is the body which changes the soul, for in\nitself it is unchangeable. As well might they say, \"Flesh is wounded\nby some body, for in itself it is invulnerable.\" In a word, that\nwhich is unchangeable can be changed by nothing, so that that which\ncan be changed by the body cannot properly be said to be immutable.\n\n\n     6. _Concerning the meaning of the Platonists in that part of\n                     philosophy called physical._\n\nThese philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above\nthe rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God,\nand therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God.\nThey have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God,\nand therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable\nspirits in seeking the supreme. They have seen also that, in every\nchangeable thing, the form which makes it that which it is, whatever\nbe its mode or nature, can only _be_ through Him who truly _is_,\nbecause He is unchangeable. And therefore, whether we consider the\nwhole body of the world, its figure, qualities, and orderly movement,\nand also all the bodies which are in it; or whether we consider\nall life, either that which nourishes and maintains, as the life\nof trees, or that which, besides this, has also sensation, as the\nlife of beasts; or that which adds to all these intelligence, as the\nlife of man; or that which does not need the support of nutriment,\nbut only maintains, feels, understands, as the life of angels,--all\ncan only _be_ through Him who absolutely _is_. For to Him it is not\none thing to _be_, and another to live, as though He could _be_,\nnot living; nor is it to Him one thing to live, and another thing\nto understand, as though He could live, not understanding; nor is\nit to Him one thing to understand, another thing to be blessed, as\nthough He could understand and not be blessed. But to Him to live, to\nunderstand, to be blessed, are to _be_. They have understood, from\nthis unchangeableness and this simplicity, that all things must have\nbeen made by Him, and that He could Himself have been made by none.\nFor they have considered that whatever is is either body or life,\nand that life is something better than body, and that the nature\nof body is sensible, and that of life intelligible. Therefore they\nhave preferred the intelligible nature to the sensible. We mean by\nsensible things such things as can be perceived by the sight and\ntouch of the body; by intelligible things, such as can be understood\nby the sight of the mind. For there is no corporeal beauty, whether\nin the condition of a body, as figure, or in its movement, as in\nmusic, of which it is not the mind that judges. But this could never\nhave been, had there not existed in the mind itself a superior form\nof these things, without bulk, without noise of voice, without\nspace and time. But even in respect of these things, had the mind\nnot been mutable, it would not have been possible for one to judge\nbetter than another with regard to sensible forms. He who is clever\njudges better than he who is slow, he who is skilled than he who is\nunskilful, he who is practised than he who is unpractised; and the\nsame person judges better after he has gained experience than he did\nbefore. But that which is capable of more and less is mutable; whence\nable men, who have thought deeply on these things, have gathered\nthat the first form is not to be found in those things whose form is\nchangeable. Since, therefore, they saw that body and mind might be\nmore or less beautiful in form, and that, if they wanted form, they\ncould have no existence, they saw that there is some existence in\nwhich is the first form, unchangeable, and therefore not admitting\nof degrees of comparison, and in that they most rightly believed\nwas the first principle of things, which was not made, and by which\nall things were made. Therefore that which is known of God He\nmanifested to them when His invisible things were seen by them, being\nunderstood by those things which have been made; also His eternal\npower and Godhead by whom all visible and temporal things have been\ncreated.[296] We have said enough upon that part of theology which\nthey call physical, that is, natural.\n\n\n     7. _How much the Platonists are to be held as excelling other\n          philosophers in logic_, i.e. _rational philosophy._\n\nThen, again, as far as regards the doctrine which treats of that\nwhich they call logic, that is, rational philosophy, far be it from\nus to compare them with those who attributed to the bodily senses the\nfaculty of discriminating truth, and thought that all we learn is to\nbe measured by their untrustworthy and fallacious rules. Such were the\nEpicureans, and all of the same school. Such also were the Stoics, who\nascribed to the bodily senses that expertness in disputation which they\nso ardently love, called by them dialectic, asserting that from the\nsenses the mind conceives the notions (\u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9) of those things which\nthey explicate by definition. And hence is developed the whole plan and\nconnection of their learning and teaching. I often wonder, with respect\nto this, how they can say that none are beautiful but the wise; for\nby what bodily sense have they perceived that beauty, by what eyes of\nthe flesh have they seen wisdom's comeliness of form? Those, however,\nwhom we justly rank before all others, have distinguished those things\nwhich are conceived by the mind from those which are perceived by the\nsenses, neither taking away from the senses anything to which they are\ncompetent, nor attributing to them anything beyond their competency.\nAnd the light of our understandings, by which all things are learned by\nus, they have affirmed to be that selfsame God by whom all things were\nmade.\n\n\n    8. _That the Platonists hold the first rank in moral philosophy\n                                also._\n\nThe remaining part of philosophy is morals, or what is called by the\nGreeks \u1f20\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, in which is discussed the question concerning the chief\ngood,--that which will leave us nothing further to seek in order to\nbe blessed, if only we make all our actions refer to it, and seek it\nnot for the sake of something else, but for its own sake. Therefore\nit is called the end, because we wish other things on account of it,\nbut itself only for its own sake. This beatific good, therefore,\naccording to some, comes to a man from the body, according to others,\nfrom the mind, and, according to others, from both together. For\nthey saw that man himself consists of soul and body; and therefore\nthey believed that from either of these two, or from both together,\ntheir well-being must proceed, consisting in a certain final good,\nwhich could render them blessed, and to which they might refer all\ntheir actions, not requiring anything ulterior to which to refer that\ngood itself. This is why those who have added a third kind of good\nthings, which they call extrinsic,--as honour, glory, wealth, and the\nlike,--have not regarded them as part of the final good, that is, to\nbe sought after for their own sake, but as things which are to be\nsought for the sake of something else, affirming that this kind of\ngood is good to the good, and evil to the evil. Wherefore, whether\nthey have sought the good of man from the mind or from the body, or\nfrom both together, it is still only from man they have supposed that\nit must be sought. But they who have sought it from the body have\nsought it from the inferior part of man; they who have sought it from\nthe mind, from the superior part; and they who have sought it from\nboth, from the whole man. Whether, therefore, they have sought it\nfrom any part, or from the whole man, still they have only sought it\nfrom man; nor have these differences, being three, given rise only\nto three dissentient sects of philosophers, but to many. For diverse\nphilosophers have held diverse opinions, both concerning the good of\nthe body, and the good of the mind, and the good of both together.\nLet, therefore, all these give place to those philosophers who have\nnot affirmed that a man is blessed by the enjoyment of the body, or\nby the enjoyment of the mind, but by the enjoyment of God,--enjoying\nHim, however, not as the mind does the body or itself, or as one\nfriend enjoys another, but as the eye enjoys light, if, indeed, we\nmay draw any comparison between these things. But what the nature of\nthis comparison is, will, if God help me, be shown in another place,\nto the best of my ability. At present, it is sufficient to mention\nthat Plato determined the final good to be to live according to\nvirtue, and affirmed that he only can attain to virtue who knows and\nimitates God,--which knowledge and imitation are the only cause of\nblessedness. Therefore he did not doubt that to philosophize is to\nlove God, whose nature is incorporeal. Whence it certainly follows\nthat the student of wisdom, that is, the philosopher, will then\nbecome blessed when he shall have begun to enjoy God. For though he\nis not necessarily blessed who enjoys that which he loves (for many\nare miserable by loving that which ought not to be loved, and still\nmore miserable when they enjoy it), nevertheless no one is blessed\nwho does not enjoy that which he loves. For even they who love things\nwhich ought not to be loved do not count themselves blessed by loving\nmerely, but by enjoying them. Who, then, but the most miserable will\ndeny that he is blessed, who enjoys that which he loves, and loves\nthe true and highest good? But the true and highest good, according\nto Plato, is God, and therefore he would call him a philosopher who\nloves God; for philosophy is directed to the obtaining of the blessed\nlife, and he who loves God is blessed in the enjoyment of God.\n\n\n     9. _Concerning that philosophy which has come nearest to the\n                           Christian faith._\n\nWhatever philosophers, therefore, thought concerning the supreme God,\nthat He is both the maker of all created things, the light by which\nthings are known, and the good in reference to which things are to be\ndone; that we have in Him the first principle of nature, the truth\nof doctrine, and the happiness of life,--whether these philosophers\nmay be more suitably called Platonists, or whether they may give some\nother name to their sect; whether, we say, that only the chief men\nof the Ionic school, such as Plato himself, and they who have well\nunderstood him, have thought thus; or whether we also include the\nItalic school, on account of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, and all\nwho may have held like opinions; and, lastly, whether also we include\nall who have been held wise men and philosophers among all nations\nwho are discovered to have seen and taught this, be they Atlantics,\nLibyans, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Gauls,\nSpaniards, or of other nations,--we prefer these to all other\nphilosophers, and confess that they approach nearest to us.\n\n\n    10. _That the excellency of the Christian religion is above all\n                     the science of philosophers._\n\nFor although a Christian man instructed only in ecclesiastical\nliterature may perhaps be ignorant of the very name of Platonists, and\nmay not even know that there have existed two schools of philosophers\nspeaking the Greek tongue, to wit, the Ionic and Italic, he is\nnevertheless not so deaf with respect to human affairs, as not to\nknow that philosophers profess the study, and even the possession,\nof wisdom. He is on his guard, however, with respect to those who\nphilosophize according to the elements of this world, not according\nto God, by whom the world itself was made; for he is warned by the\nprecept of the apostle, and faithfully hears what has been said,\n\"Beware that no one deceive you through philosophy and vain deceit,\naccording to the elements of the world.\"[297] Then, that he may not\nsuppose that all philosophers are such as do this, he hears the same\napostle say concerning certain of them, \"Because that which is known\nof God is manifest among them, for God has manifested it to them. For\nHis invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen,\nbeing understood by the things which are made, also His eternal power\nand Godhead.\"[298] And, when speaking to the Athenians, after having\nspoken a mighty thing concerning God, which few are able to understand,\n\"In Him we live, and move, and have our being,\"[299] he goes on to say,\n\"As certain also of your own have said.\" He knows well, too, to be on\nhis guard against even these philosophers in their errors. For where\nit has been said by him, \"that God has manifested to them by those\nthings which are made His invisible things, that they might be seen\nby the understanding,\" there it has also been said that they did not\nrightly worship God Himself, because they paid divine honours, which\nare due to Him alone, to other things also to which they ought not to\nhave paid them,--\"because, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God;\nneither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their\nfoolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they\nbecame fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the\nlikeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted\nbeasts, and creeping things;\"[300]--where the apostle would have us\nunderstand him as meaning the Romans, and Greeks, and Egyptians, who\ngloried in the name of wisdom; but concerning this we will dispute\nwith them afterwards. With respect, however, to that wherein they\nagree with us we prefer them to all others, namely, concerning the one\nGod, the author of this universe, who is not only above every body,\nbeing incorporeal, but also above all souls, being incorruptible--our\nprinciple, our light, our good. And though the Christian man, being\nignorant of their writings, does not use in disputation words which he\nhas not learned,--not calling that part of philosophy natural (which\nis the Latin term), or physical (which is the Greek one), which treats\nof the investigation of nature; or that part rational, or logical,\nwhich deals with the question how truth may be discovered; or that\npart moral, or ethical, which concerns morals, and shows how good is\nto be sought, and evil to be shunned,--he is not, therefore, ignorant\nthat it is from the one true and supremely good God that we have that\nnature in which we are made in the image of God, and that doctrine by\nwhich we know Him and ourselves, and that grace through which, by\ncleaving to Him, we are blessed. This, therefore, is the cause why we\nprefer these to all the others, because, whilst other philosophers\nhave worn out their minds and powers in seeking the causes of things,\nand endeavouring to discover the right mode of learning and of living,\nthese, by knowing God, have found where resides the cause by which\nthe universe has been constituted, and the light by which truth is to\nbe discovered, and the fountain at which felicity is to be drunk. All\nphilosophers, then, who have had these thoughts concerning God, whether\nPlatonists or others, agree with us. But we have thought it better to\nplead our cause with the Platonists, because their writings are better\nknown. For the Greeks, whose tongue holds the highest place among the\nlanguages of the Gentiles, are loud in their praises of these writings;\nand the Latins, taken with their excellence, or their renown, have\nstudied them more heartily than other writings, and, by translating\nthem into our tongue, have given them greater celebrity and notoriety.\n\n\n    11. _How Plato has been able to approach so nearly to Christian\n                              knowledge._\n\nCertain partakers with us in the grace of Christ, wonder when\nthey hear and read that Plato had conceptions concerning God, in\nwhich they recognise considerable agreement with the truth of our\nreligion. Some have concluded from this, that when he went to Egypt\nhe had heard the prophet Jeremiah, or, whilst travelling in the\nsame country, had read the prophetic scriptures, which opinion I\nmyself have expressed in certain of my writings.[301] But a careful\ncalculation of dates, contained in chronological history, shows\nthat Plato was born about a hundred years after the time in which\nJeremiah prophesied, and, as he lived eighty-one years, there are\nfound to have been about seventy years from his death to that time\nwhen Ptolemy, king of Egypt, requested the prophetic scriptures\nof the Hebrew people to be sent to him from Judea, and committed\nthem to seventy Hebrews, who also knew the Greek tongue, to be\ntranslated and kept. Therefore, on that voyage of his, Plato could\nneither have seen Jeremiah, who was dead so long before, nor have\nread those same scriptures which had not yet been translated into\nthe Greek language, of which he was a master, unless, indeed, we\nsay that, as he was most earnest in the pursuit of knowledge, he\nalso studied those writings through an interpreter, as he did those\nof the Egyptians,--not, indeed, writing a translation of them (the\nfacilities for doing which were only gained even by Ptolemy in return\nfor munificent acts of kindness,[302] though fear of his kingly\nauthority might have seemed a sufficient motive), but learning as\nmuch as he possibly could concerning their contents by means of\nconversation. What warrants this supposition is the opening verses\nof Genesis: \"In the beginning God made the heaven and earth. And the\nearth was invisible, and without order; and darkness was over the\nabyss: and the Spirit of God moved over the waters.\"[303] For in\nthe _Tim\u00e6us_, when writing on the formation of the world, he says\nthat God first united earth and fire; from which it is evident that\nhe assigns to fire a place in heaven. This opinion bears a certain\nresemblance to the statement, \"In the beginning God made heaven and\nearth.\" Plato next speaks of those two intermediary elements, water\nand air, by which the other two extremes, namely, earth and fire,\nwere mutually united; from which circumstance he is thought to have\nso understood the words, \"The Spirit of God moved over the waters.\"\nFor, not paying sufficient attention to the designations given by\nthose scriptures to the Spirit of God, he may have thought that the\nfour elements are spoken of in that place, because the air also is\ncalled spirit.[304] Then, as to Plato's saying that the philosopher\nis a lover of God, nothing shines forth more conspicuously in those\nsacred writings. But the most striking thing in this connection, and\nthat which most of all inclines me almost to assent to the opinion\nthat Plato was not ignorant of those writings, is the answer which\nwas given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the words\nof God were conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked what was\nthe name of that God who was commanding him to go and deliver the\nHebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was given: \"I am who am;\nand thou shalt say to the children of Israel, He who _is_ sent me\nunto you;\"[305] as though compared with Him that truly _is_, because\nHe is unchangeable, those things which have been created mutable\n_are_ not,--a truth which Plato vehemently held, and most diligently\ncommended. And I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere to be\nfound in the books of those who were before Plato, unless in that\nbook where it is said, \"I am who am; and thou shalt say to the\nchildren of Israel, _Who is_ sent me unto you.\"\n\n\n  12. _That even the Platonists, though they say these things\n      concerning the one true God, nevertheless thought that sacred\n      rites were to be performed in honour of many gods._\n\nBut we need not determine from what source he learned these\nthings,--whether it was from the books of the ancients who preceded\nhim, or, as is more likely, from the words of the apostle: \"Because\nthat which is known of God has been manifested among them, for\nGod hath manifested it to them. For His invisible things from\nthe creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by\nthose things which have been made, also His eternal power and\nGodhead.\"[306] From whatever source he may have derived this\nknowledge, then, I think I have made it sufficiently plain that\nI have not chosen the Platonic philosophers undeservedly as the\nparties with whom to discuss; because the question we have just\ntaken up concerns the natural theology,--the question, namely,\nwhether sacred rites are to be performed to one God, or to many,\nfor the sake of the happiness which is to be after death. I have\nspecially chosen them because their juster thoughts concerning the\none God who made heaven and earth, have made them illustrious among\nphilosophers. This has given them such superiority to all others\nin the judgment of posterity, that, though Aristotle, the disciple\nof Plato, a man of eminent abilities, inferior in eloquence to\nPlato, yet far superior to many in that respect, had founded the\nPeripatetic sect,--so called because they were in the habit of\nwalking about during their disputations,--and though he had, through\nthe greatness of his fame, gathered very many disciples into his\nschool, even during the life of his master; and though Plato at his\ndeath was succeeded in his school, which was called the Academy, by\nSpeusippus, his sister's son, and Xenocrates, his beloved disciple,\nwho, together with their successors, were called from this name of\nthe school, Academics; nevertheless the most illustrious recent\nphilosophers, who have chosen to follow Plato, have been unwilling to\nbe called Peripatetics, or Academics, but have preferred the name of\nPlatonists. Among these were the renowned Plotinus, Iamblichus, and\nPorphyry, who were Greeks, and the African Apuleius, who was learned\nboth in the Greek and Latin tongues. All these, however, and the rest\nwho were of the same school, and also Plato himself, thought that\nsacred rites ought to be performed in honour of many gods.\n\n\n  13. _Concerning the opinion of Plato, according to which he defined\n     the gods as beings entirely good and the friends of virtue._\n\nTherefore, although in many other important respects they differ from\nus, nevertheless with respect to this particular point of difference,\nwhich I have just stated, as it is one of great moment, and the\nquestion on hand concerns it, I will first ask them to what gods\nthey think that sacred rites are to be performed,--to the good or to\nthe bad, or to both the good and the bad? But we have the opinion of\nPlato affirming that all the gods are good, and that there is not\none of the gods bad. It follows, therefore, that these are to be\nperformed to the good, for then they are performed to gods; for if\nthey are not good, neither are they gods. Now, if this be the case\n(for what else ought we to believe concerning the gods?), certainly\nit explodes the opinion that the bad gods are to be propitiated by\nsacred rites in order that they may not harm us, but the good gods\nare to be invoked in order that they may assist us. For there are no\nbad gods, and it is to the good that, as they say, the due honour of\nsuch rites is to be paid. Of what character, then, are those gods who\nlove scenic displays, even demanding that a place be given them among\ndivine things, and that they be exhibited in their honour? The power\nof these gods proves that they exist, but their liking such things\nproves that they are bad. For it is well known what Plato's opinion\nwas concerning scenic plays. He thinks that the poets themselves,\nbecause they have composed songs so unworthy of the majesty and\ngoodness of the gods, ought to be banished from the state. Of what\ncharacter, therefore, are those gods who contend with Plato himself\nabout those scenic plays? He does not suffer the gods to be defamed\nby false crimes; the gods command those same crimes to be celebrated\nin their own honour.\n\nIn fine, when they ordered these plays to be inaugurated, they not\nonly demanded base things, but also did cruel things, taking from\nTitus Latinius his son, and sending a disease upon him because he\nhad refused to obey them, which they removed when he had fulfilled\ntheir commands. Plato, however, bad though they were, did not\nthink they were to be feared; but, holding to his opinion with the\nutmost firmness and constancy, does not hesitate to remove from a\nwell-ordered state all the sacrilegious follies of the poets, with\nwhich these gods are delighted because they themselves are impure.\nBut Labeo places this same Plato (as I have mentioned already in the\nsecond book[307]) among the demi-gods. Now Labeo thinks that the\nbad deities are to be propitiated with bloody victims, and by fasts\naccompanied with the same, but the good deities with plays, and all\nother things which are associated with joyfulness. How comes it,\nthen, that the demi-god Plato so persistently dares to take away\nthose pleasures, because he deems them base, not from the demi-gods\nbut from the gods, and these the good gods? And, moreover, those very\ngods themselves do certainly refute the opinion of Labeo, for they\nshowed themselves in the case of Latinius to be not only wanton and\nsportive, but also cruel and terrible. Let the Platonists, therefore,\nexplain these things to us, since, following the opinion of their\nmaster, they think that all the gods are good and honourable, and\nfriendly to the virtues of the wise, holding it unlawful to think\notherwise concerning any of the gods. We will explain it, say they.\nLet us then attentively listen to them.\n\n\n  14. _Of the opinion of those who have said that rational souls are\n      of three kinds, to wit, those of the celestial gods, those of\n      the aerial demons, and those of terrestrial men._\n\nThere is, say they, a threefold division of all animals endowed with\na rational soul, namely, into gods, men, and demons. The gods occupy\nthe loftiest region, men the lowest, the demons the middle region.\nFor the abode of the gods is heaven, that of men the earth, that of\nthe demons the air. As the dignity of their regions is diverse, so\nalso is that of their natures; therefore the gods are better than men\nand demons. Men have been placed below the gods and demons, both in\nrespect of the order of the regions they inhabit, and the difference\nof their merits. The demons, therefore, who hold the middle place,\nas they are inferior to the gods, than whom they inhabit a lower\nregion, so they are superior to men, than whom they inhabit a loftier\none. For they have immortality of body in common with the gods, but\npassions of the mind in common with men. On which account, say they,\nit is not wonderful that they are delighted with the obscenities\nof the theatre, and the fictions of the poets, since they are also\nsubject to human passions, from which the gods are far removed, and\nto which they are altogether strangers. Whence we conclude that it\nwas not the gods, who are all good and highly exalted, that Plato\ndeprived of the pleasure of theatric plays, by reprobating and\nprohibiting the fictions of the poets, but the demons.\n\nOf these things many have written: among others Apuleius, the Platonist\nof Madaura, who composed a whole work on the subject, entitled,\n_Concerning the God of Socrates_. He there discusses and explains of\nwhat kind that deity was who attended on Socrates, a sort of familiar,\nby whom it is said he was admonished to desist from any action which\nwould not turn out to his advantage. He asserts most distinctly, and\nproves at great length, that it was not a god but a demon; and he\ndiscusses with great diligence the opinion of Plato concerning the\nlofty estate of the gods, the lowly estate of men, and the middle\nestate of demons. These things being so, how did Plato dare to take\naway, if not from the gods, whom he removed from all human contagion,\ncertainly from the demons, all the pleasures of the theatre, by\nexpelling the poets from the state? Evidently in this way he wished\nto admonish the human soul, although still confined in these moribund\nmembers, to despise the shameful commands of the demons, and to detest\ntheir impurity, and to choose rather the splendour of virtue. But\nif Plato showed himself virtuous in answering and prohibiting these\nthings, then certainly it was shameful of the demons to command them.\nTherefore either Apuleius is wrong, and Socrates' familiar did not\nbelong to this class of deities, or Plato held contradictory opinions,\nnow honouring the demons, now removing from the well-regulated\nstate the things in which they delighted, or Socrates is not to be\ncongratulated on the friendship of the demon, of which Apuleius was\nso ashamed that he entitled his book _On the God of Socrates_, whilst\naccording to the tenor of his discussion, wherein he so diligently\nand at such length distinguishes gods from demons, he ought not to\nhave entitled it, _Concerning the God_, but _Concerning the Demon of\nSocrates_. But he preferred to put this into the discussion itself\nrather than into the title of his book. For, through the sound doctrine\nwhich has illuminated human society, all, or almost all men have such\na horror at the name of demons, that every one who, before reading\nthe dissertation of Apuleius, which sets forth the dignity of demons,\nshould have read the title of the book, _On the Demon of Socrates_,\nwould certainly have thought that the author was not a sane man. But\nwhat did even Apuleius find to praise in the demons, except subtlety\nand strength of body and a higher place of habitation? For when he\nspoke generally concerning their manners, he said nothing that was\ngood, but very much that was bad. Finally, no one, when he has read\nthat book, wonders that they desired to have even the obscenity of the\nstage among divine things, or that, wishing to be thought gods, they\nshould be delighted with the crimes of the gods, or that all those\nsacred solemnities, whose obscenity occasions laughter, and whose\nshameful cruelty causes horror, should be in agreement with their\npassions.\n\n\n     15. _That the demons are not better than men because of their\n    aerial bodies, or on account of their superior place of abode._\n\nWherefore let not the mind truly religious, and submitted to the\ntrue God, suppose that demons are better than men, because they\nhave better bodies. Otherwise it must put many beasts before itself\nwhich are superior to us both in acuteness of the senses, in ease\nand quickness of movement, in strength and in long-continued vigour\nof body. What man can equal the eagle or the vulture in strength of\nvision? Who can equal the dog in acuteness of smell? Who can equal\nthe hare, the stag, and all the birds in swiftness? Who can equal\nin strength the lion or the elephant? Who can equal in length of\nlife the serpents, which are affirmed to put off old age along with\ntheir skin, and to return to youth again? But as we are better than\nall these by the possession of reason and understanding, so we ought\nalso to be better than the demons by living good and virtuous lives.\nFor divine providence gave to them bodies of a better quality than\nours, that that in which we excel them might in this way be commended\nto us as deserving to be far more cared for than the body, and that\nwe should learn to despise the bodily excellence of the demons\ncompared with goodness of life, in respect of which we are better\nthan they, knowing that we too shall have immortality of body,--not\nan immortality tortured by eternal punishment, but that which is\nconsequent on purity of soul.\n\nBut now, as regards loftiness of place, it is altogether ridiculous\nto be so influenced by the fact that the demons inhabit the air, and\nwe the earth, as to think that on that account they are to be put\nbefore us; for in this way we put all the birds before ourselves.\nBut the birds, when they are weary with flying, or require to repair\ntheir bodies with food, come back to the earth to rest or to feed,\nwhich the demons, they say, do not. Are they, therefore, inclined\nto say that the birds are superior to us, and the demons superior\nto the birds? But if it be madness to think so, there is no reason\nwhy we should think that, on account of their inhabiting a loftier\nelement, the demons have a claim to our religious submission. But\nas it is really the case that the birds of the air are not only not\nput before us who dwell on the earth, but are even subjected to us\non account of the dignity of the rational soul which is in us, so\nalso it is the case that the demons, though they are aerial, are not\nbetter than we who are terrestrial because the air is higher than\nthe earth, but, on the contrary, men are to be put before demons\nbecause their despair is not to be compared to the hope of pious men.\nEven that law of Plato's, according to which he mutually orders\nand arranges the four elements, inserting between the two extreme\nelements--namely, fire, which is in the highest degree mobile, and\nthe immoveable earth--the two middle ones, air and water, that by\nhow much the air is higher up than the water, and the fire than the\nair, by so much also are the waters higher than the earth,--this\nlaw, I say, sufficiently admonishes us not to estimate the merits\nof animated creatures according to the grades of the elements. And\nApuleius himself says that man is a terrestrial animal in common with\nthe rest, who is nevertheless to be put far before aquatic animals,\nthough Plato puts the waters themselves before the land. By this he\nwould have us understand that the same order is not to be observed\nwhen the question concerns the merits of animals, though it seems\nto be the true one in the gradation of bodies; for it appears to be\npossible that a soul of a higher order may inhabit a body of a lower,\nand a soul of a lower order a body of a higher.\n\n\n    16. _What Apuleius the Platonist thought concerning the manners\n                        and actions of demons._\n\nThe same Apuleius, when speaking concerning the manners of demons,\nsaid that they are agitated with the same perturbations of mind as\nmen; that they are provoked by injuries, propitiated by services and\nby gifts, rejoice in honours, are delighted with a variety of sacred\nrites, and are annoyed if any of them be neglected. Among other\nthings, he also says that on them depend the divinations of augurs,\nsoothsayers, and prophets, and the revelations of dreams; and that\nfrom them also are the miracles of the magicians. But, when giving a\nbrief definition of them, he says, \"Demons are of an animal nature,\npassive in soul, rational in mind, aerial in body, eternal in time.\"\n\"Of which five things, the three first are common to them and us, the\nfourth peculiar to themselves, and the fifth common to them with the\ngods.\"[308] But I see that they have in common with the gods two of\nthe first things, which they have in common with us. For he says that\nthe gods also are animals; and when he is assigning to every order\nof beings its own element, he places us among the other terrestrial\nanimals which live and feel upon the earth. Wherefore, if the demons\nare animals as to genus, this is common to them, not only with men,\nbut also with the gods and with beasts; if they are rational as to\ntheir mind, this is common to them with the gods and with men; if\nthey are eternal in time, this is common to them with the gods only;\nif they are passive as to their soul, this is common to them with men\nonly; if they are aerial in body, in this they are alone. Therefore\nit is no great thing for them to be of an animal nature, for so also\nare the beasts; in being rational as to mind, they are not above\nourselves, for so are we also; and as to their being eternal as to\ntime, what is the advantage of that if they are not blessed? for\nbetter is temporal happiness than eternal misery. Again, as to their\nbeing passive in soul, how are they in this respect above us, since\nwe also are so, but would not have been so had we not been miserable?\nAlso, as to their being aerial in body, how much value is to be set\non that, since a soul of any kind whatsoever is to be set above every\nbody? and therefore religious worship, which ought to be rendered\nfrom the soul, is by no means due to that thing which is inferior\nto the soul. Moreover, if he had, among those things which he says\nbelong to demons, enumerated virtue, wisdom, happiness, and affirmed\nthat they have those things in common with the gods, and, like them,\neternally, he would assuredly have attributed to them something\ngreatly to be desired, and much to be prized. And even in that case\nit would not have been our duty to worship them like God on account\nof these things, but rather to worship Him from whom we know they had\nreceived them. But how much less are they really worthy of divine\nhonour,--those aerial animals who are only rational that they may be\ncapable of misery, passive that they may be actually miserable, and\neternal that it may be impossible for them to end their misery!\n\n\n    17. _Whether it is proper that men should worship those spirits\n         from whose vices it is necessary that they be freed._\n\nWherefore, to omit other things, and confine our attention to that\nwhich he says is common to the demons with us, let us ask this\nquestion: If all the four elements are full of their own animals, the\nfire and the air of immortal, and the water and the earth of mortal\nones, why are the souls of demons agitated by the whirlwinds and\ntempests of passions?--for the Greek word \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 means perturbation,\nwhence he chose to call the demons \"passive in soul,\" because the word\npassion, which is derived from \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, signified a commotion of the\nmind contrary to reason. Why, then, are these things in the minds of\ndemons which are not in beasts? For if anything of this kind appears in\nbeasts, it is not perturbation, because it is not contrary to reason,\nof which they are devoid. Now it is foolishness or misery which is\nthe cause of these perturbations in the case of men, for we are not\nyet blessed in the possession of that perfection of wisdom which is\npromised to us at last, when we shall be set free from our present\nmortality. But the gods, they say, are free from these perturbations,\nbecause they are not only eternal, but also blessed; for they also\nhave the same kind of rational souls, but most pure from all spot and\nplague. Wherefore, if the gods are free from perturbation because they\nare blessed, not miserable animals, and the beasts are free from them\nbecause they are animals which are capable neither of blessedness\nnor misery, it remains that the demons, like men, are subject to\nperturbations because they are not blessed but miserable animals.\nWhat folly, therefore, or rather what madness, to submit ourselves\nthrough any sentiment of religion to demons, when it belongs to the\ntrue religion to deliver us from that depravity which makes us like to\nthem! For Apuleius himself, although he is very sparing toward them,\nand thinks they are worthy of divine honours, is nevertheless compelled\nto confess that they are subject to anger; and the true religion\ncommands us not to be moved with anger, but rather to resist it. The\ndemons are won over by gifts; and the true religion commands us to\nfavour no one on account of gifts received. The demons are flattered by\nhonours; but the true religion commands us by no means to be moved by\nsuch things. The demons are haters of some men and lovers of others,\nnot in consequence of a prudent and calm judgment, but because of what\nhe calls their \"passive soul;\" whereas the true religion commands us\nto love even our enemies. Lastly, the true religion commands us to\nput away all disquietude of heart, and agitation of mind, and also\nall commotions and tempests of the soul, which Apuleius asserts to\nbe continually swelling and surging in the souls of demons. Why,\ntherefore, except through foolishness and miserable error, shouldst\nthou humble thyself to worship a being to whom thou desirest to be\nunlike in thy life? And why shouldst thou pay religious homage to him\nwhom thou art unwilling to imitate, when it is the highest duty of\nreligion to imitate Him whom thou worshippest?\n\n\n  18. _What kind of religion that is which teaches that men ought to\n      employ the advocacy of demons in order to be recommended to the\n      favour of the good gods._\n\nIn vain, therefore, have Apuleius, and they who think with him,\nconferred on the demons the honour of placing them in the air, between\nthe ethereal heavens and the earth, that they may carry to the gods\nthe prayers of men, to men the answers of the gods; for Plato held,\nthey say, that no god has intercourse with man. They who believe these\nthings have thought it unbecoming that men should have intercourse with\nthe gods, and the gods with men, but a befitting thing that the demons\nshould have intercourse with both gods and men, presenting to the gods\nthe petitions of men, and conveying to men what the gods have granted;\nso that a chaste man, and one who is a stranger to the crimes of the\nmagic arts, must use as patrons, through whom the gods may be induced\nto hear him, demons who love these crimes, although the very fact of\nhis not loving them ought to have recommended him to them as one who\ndeserved to be listened to with greater readiness and willingness on\ntheir part. They love the abominations of the stage, which chastity\ndoes not love. They love, in the sorceries of the magicians, \"_a\nthousand arts of inflicting harm_,\"[309] which innocence does not love.\nYet both chastity and innocence, if they wish to obtain anything from\nthe gods, will not be able to do so by their own merits, except their\nenemies act as mediators on their behalf. Apuleius need not attempt\nto justify the fictions of the poets, and the mockeries of the stage.\nIf human modesty can act so faithlessly towards itself as not only to\nlove shameful things, but even to think that they are pleasing to the\ndivinity, we can cite on the other side their own highest authority and\nteacher, Plato.\n\n\n    19. _Of the impiety of the magic art, which is dependent on the\n                    assistance of malign spirits._\n\nMoreover, against those magic arts, concerning which some men,\nexceedingly wretched and exceedingly impious, delight to boast, may\nnot public opinion itself be brought forward as a witness? For why are\nthose arts so severely punished by the laws, if they are the works\nof deities who ought to be worshipped? Shall it be said that the\nChristians have ordained those laws by which magic arts are punished?\nWith what other meaning, except that these sorceries are without doubt\npernicious to the human race, did the most illustrious poet say,\n\n          \"By heaven, I swear, and your dear life,\n             Unwillingly these arms I wield,\n           And take, to meet the coming strife,\n             Enchantment's sword and shield.\"[310]\n\nAnd that also which he says in another place concerning magic arts,\n\n          \"I've seen him to another place transport the standing\n               corn,\"[311]\n\nhas reference to the fact that the fruits of one field are said to\nbe transferred to another by these arts which this pestiferous and\naccursed doctrine teaches. Does not Cicero inform us that, among\nthe laws of the Twelve Tables, that is, the most ancient laws of\nthe Romans, there was a law written which appointed a punishment\nto be inflicted on him who should do this?[312] Lastly, was it\nbefore Christian judges that Apuleius himself was accused of magic\narts?[313] Had he known these arts to be divine and pious, and\ncongruous with the works of divine power, he ought not only to\nhave confessed, but also to have professed them, rather blaming\nthe laws by which these things were prohibited and pronounced\nworthy of condemnation, while they ought to have been held worthy\nof admiration and respect. For by so doing, either he would have\npersuaded the judges to adopt his own opinion, or, if they had\nshown their partiality for unjust laws, and condemned him to death\nnotwithstanding his praising and commending such things, the demons\nwould have bestowed on his soul such rewards as he deserved, who, in\norder to proclaim and set forth their divine works, had not feared\nthe loss of his human life. As our martyrs, when that religion was\ncharged on them as a crime, by which they knew they were made safe\nand most glorious throughout eternity, did not choose, by denying it,\nto escape temporal punishments, but rather by confessing, professing,\nand proclaiming it, by enduring all things for it with fidelity and\nfortitude, and by dying for it with pious calmness, put to shame the\nlaw by which that religion was prohibited, and caused its revocation.\nBut there is extant a most copious and eloquent oration of this\nPlatonic philosopher, in which he defends himself against the charge\nof practising these arts, affirming that he is wholly a stranger to\nthem, and only wishing to show his innocence by denying such things\nas cannot be innocently committed. But all the miracles of the\nmagicians, who he thinks are justly deserving of condemnation, are\nperformed according to the teaching and by the power of demons. Why,\nthen, does he think that they ought to be honoured? For he asserts\nthat they are necessary, in order to present our prayers to the\ngods, and yet their works are such as we must shun if we wish our\nprayers to reach the true God. Again, I ask, what kind of prayers of\nmen does he suppose are presented to the good gods by the demons?\nIf magical prayers, they will have none such; if lawful prayers,\nthey will not receive them through such beings. But if a sinner who\nis penitent pour out prayers, especially if he has committed any\ncrime of sorcery, does he receive pardon through the intercession of\nthose demons by whose instigation and help he has fallen into the\nsin he mourns? or do the demons themselves, in order that they may\nmerit pardon for the penitent, first become penitents because they\nhave deceived them? This no one ever said concerning the demons;\nfor had this been the case, they would never have dared to seek for\nthemselves divine honours. For how should they do so who desired by\npenitence to obtain the grace of pardon, seeing that such detestable\npride could not exist along with a humility worthy of pardon?\n\n\n  20. _Whether we are to believe that the good gods are more willing\n            to have intercourse with demons than with men._\n\nBut does any urgent and most pressing cause compel the demons to\nmediate between the gods and men, that they may offer the prayers of\nmen, and bring back the answers from the gods? and if so, what, pray,\nis that cause, what is that so great necessity? Because, say they, no\ngod has intercourse with man. Most admirable holiness of God, which\nhas no intercourse with a supplicating man, and yet has intercourse\nwith an arrogant demon! which has no intercourse with a penitent\nman, and yet has intercourse with a deceiving demon! which has no\nintercourse with a man fleeing for refuge to the divine nature, and\nyet has intercourse with a demon feigning divinity! which has no\nintercourse with a man seeking pardon, and yet has intercourse with\na demon persuading to wickedness! which has no intercourse with a\nman expelling the poets by means of philosophical writings from a\nwell-regulated state, and yet has intercourse with a demon requesting\nfrom the princes and priests of a state the theatrical performance of\nthe mockeries of the poets! which has no intercourse with the man who\nprohibits the ascribing of crime to the gods, and yet has intercourse\nwith a demon who takes delight in the fictitious representation of\ntheir crimes! which has no intercourse with a man punishing the\ncrimes of the magicians by just laws, and yet has intercourse with a\ndemon teaching and practising magical arts! which has no intercourse\nwith a man shunning the imitation of a demon, and yet has intercourse\nwith a demon lying in wait for the deception of a man!\n\n\n  21. _Whether the gods use the demons as messengers and\n      interpreters, and whether they are deceived by them willingly,\n      or without their own knowledge._\n\nBut herein, no doubt, lies the great necessity for this absurdity, so\nunworthy of the gods, that the ethereal gods, who are concerned about\nhuman affairs, would not know what terrestrial men were doing unless\nthe aerial demons should bring them intelligence, because the ether\nis suspended far away from the earth and far above it, but the air is\ncontiguous both to the ether and to the earth. O admirable wisdom!\nwhat else do these men think concerning the gods who, they say, are\nall in the highest degree good, but that they are concerned about\nhuman affairs, lest they should seem unworthy of worship, whilst,\non the other hand, from the distance between the elements, they are\nignorant of terrestrial things? It is on this account that they have\nsupposed the demons to be necessary as agents, through whom the gods\nmay inform themselves with respect to human affairs, and through\nwhom, when necessary, they may succour men; and it is on account of\nthis office that the demons themselves have been held as deserving of\nworship. If this be the case, then a demon is better known by these\ngood gods through nearness of body, than a man is by goodness of mind.\nO mournful necessity! or shall I not rather say detestable and vain\nerror, that I may not impute vanity to the divine nature! For if the\ngods can, with their minds free from the hindrance of bodies, see\nour mind, they do not need the demons as messengers from our mind to\nthem; but if the ethereal gods, by means of their bodies, perceive the\ncorporeal indices of minds, as the countenance, speech, motion, and\nthence understand what the demons tell them, then it is also possible\nthat they may be deceived by the falsehoods of demons. Moreover, if the\ndivinity of the gods cannot be deceived by the demons, neither can it\nbe ignorant of our actions. But I would they would tell me whether the\ndemons have informed the gods that the fictions of the poets concerning\nthe crimes of the gods displease Plato, concealing the pleasure which\nthey themselves take in them; or whether they have concealed both, and\nhave preferred that the gods should be ignorant with respect to this\nwhole matter, or have told both, as well the pious prudence of Plato\nwith respect to the gods as their own lust, which is injurious to the\ngods; or whether they have concealed Plato's opinion, according to\nwhich he was unwilling that the gods should be defamed with falsely\nalleged crimes through the impious licence of the poets, whilst they\nhave not been ashamed nor afraid to make known their own wickedness,\nwhich make them love theatrical plays, in which the infamous deeds of\nthe gods are celebrated. Let them choose which they will of these\nfour alternatives, and let them consider how much evil any one of\nthem would require them to think of the gods. For if they choose the\nfirst, they must then confess that it was not possible for the good\ngods to dwell with the good Plato, though he sought to prohibit things\ninjurious to them, whilst they dwelt with evil demons, who exulted\nin their injuries; and this because they suppose that the good gods\ncan only know a good man, placed at so great a distance from them,\nthrough the mediation of evil demons, whom they could know on account\nof their nearness to themselves.[314] If they shall choose the second,\nand shall say that both these things are concealed by the demons, so\nthat the gods are wholly ignorant both of Plato's most religious law\nand the sacrilegious pleasure of the demons, what, in that case, can\nthe gods know to any profit with respect to human affairs through\nthese mediating demons, when they do not know those things which are\ndecreed, through the piety of good men, for the honour of the good\ngods against the lust of evil demons? But if they shall choose the\nthird, and reply that these intermediary demons have communicated,\nnot only the opinion of Plato, which prohibited wrongs to be done to\nthe gods, but also their own delight in these wrongs, I would ask if\nsuch a communication is not rather an insult? Now the gods, hearing\nboth and knowing both, not only permit the approach of those malign\ndemons, who desire and do things contrary to the dignity of the gods\nand the religion of Plato, but also, through these wicked demons, who\nare near to them, send good things to the good Plato, who is far away\nfrom them; for they inhabit such a place in the concatenated series of\nthe elements, that they can come into contact with those by whom they\nare accused, but not with him by whom they are defended,--knowing the\ntruth on both sides, but not being able to change the weight of the air\nand the earth. There remains the fourth supposition; but it is worse\nthan the rest. For who will suffer it to be said that the demons have\nmade known the calumnious fictions of the poets concerning the immortal\ngods, and also the disgraceful mockeries of the theatres, and their\nown most ardent lust after, and most sweet pleasure in these things,\nwhilst they have concealed from them that Plato, with the gravity of\na philosopher, gave it as his opinion that all these things ought to\nbe removed from a well-regulated republic; so that the good gods are\nnow compelled, through such messengers, to know the evil doings of the\nmost wicked beings, that is to say, of the messengers themselves, and\nare not allowed to know the good deeds of the philosophers, though the\nformer are for the injury, but these latter for the honour of the gods\nthemselves?\n\n\n  22. _That we must, notwithstanding the opinion of Apuleius, reject\n                        the worship of demons._\n\nNone of these four alternatives, then, is to be chosen; for we\ndare not suppose such unbecoming things concerning the gods as the\nadoption of any one of them would lead us to think. It remains,\ntherefore, that no credence whatever is to be given to the opinion\nof Apuleius and the other philosophers of the same school, namely,\nthat the demons act as messengers and interpreters between the gods\nand men to carry our petitions from us to the gods, and to bring\nback to us the help of the gods. On the contrary, we must believe\nthem to be spirits most eager to inflict harm, utterly alien from\nrighteousness, swollen with pride, pale with envy, subtle in deceit;\nwho dwell indeed in this air as in a prison, in keeping with their\nown character, because, cast down from the height of the higher\nheaven, they have been condemned to dwell in this element as the\njust reward of irretrievable transgression. But, though the air is\nsituated above the earth and the waters, they are not on that account\nsuperior in merit to men, who, though they do not surpass them as\nfar as their earthly bodies are concerned, do nevertheless far excel\nthem through piety of mind,--they having made choice of the true God\nas their helper. Over many, however, who are manifestly unworthy of\nparticipation in the true religion, they tyrannize as over captives\nwhom they have subdued,--the greatest part of whom they have\npersuaded of their divinity by wonderful and lying signs, consisting\neither of deeds or of predictions. Some, nevertheless, who have more\nattentively and diligently considered their vices, they have not been\nable to persuade that they are gods, and so have feigned themselves\nto be messengers between the gods and men. Some, indeed, have\nthought that not even this latter honour ought to be acknowledged as\nbelonging to them, not believing that they were gods, because they\nsaw that they were wicked, whereas the gods, according to their view,\nare all good. Nevertheless they dared not say that they were wholly\nunworthy of all divine honour, for fear of offending the multitude,\nby whom, through inveterate superstition, the demons were served by\nthe performance of many rites, and the erection of many temples.\n\n\n  23. _What Hermes Trismegistus thought concerning idolatry, and from\n      what source he knew that the superstitions of Egypt were to be\n      abolished._\n\nThe Egyptian Hermes, whom they call Trismegistus, had a different\nopinion concerning those demons. Apuleius, indeed, denies that they\nare gods; but when he says that they hold a middle place between the\ngods and men, so that they seem to be necessary for men as mediators\nbetween them and the gods, he does not distinguish between the\nworship due to them and the religious homage due to the supernal\ngods. This Egyptian, however, says that there are some gods made by\nthe supreme God, and some made by men. Any one who hears this, as I\nhave stated it, no doubt supposes that it has reference to images,\nbecause they are the works of the hands of men; but he asserts that\nvisible and tangible images are, as it were, only the bodies of the\ngods, and that there dwell in them certain spirits, which have been\ninvited to come into them, and which have power to inflict harm, or\nto fulfil the desires of those by whom divine honours and services\nare rendered to them. To unite, therefore, by a certain art, those\ninvisible spirits to visible and material things, so as to make, as\nit were, animated bodies, dedicated and given up to those spirits\nwho inhabit them,--this, he says, is to make gods, adding that men\nhave received this great and wonderful power. I will give the words\nof this Egyptian as they have been translated into our tongue: \"And,\nsince we have undertaken to discourse concerning the relationship\nand fellowship between men and the gods, know, O \u00c6sculapius, the\npower and strength of man. As the Lord and Father, or that which is\nhighest, even God, is the maker of the celestial gods, so man is\nthe maker of the gods who are in the temples, content to dwell near\nto men.\"[315] And a little after he says, \"Thus humanity, always\nmindful of its nature and origin, perseveres in the imitation of\ndivinity; and as the Lord and Father made eternal gods, that they\nshould be like Himself, so humanity fashioned its own gods according\nto the likeness of its own countenance.\" When this \u00c6sculapius, to\nwhom especially he was speaking, had answered him, and had said,\n\"Dost thou mean the statues, O Trismegistus?\"--\"Yes, the statues,\"\nreplied he, \"however unbelieving thou art, O \u00c6sculapius,--the\nstatues, animated, and full of sensation and spirit, and who do\nsuch great and wonderful things,--the statues, prescient of future\nthings, and foretelling them by lot, by prophet, by dreams, and\nmany other things, who bring diseases on men and cure them again,\ngiving them joy or sorrow according to their merits. Dost thou\nnot know, \u00c6sculapius, that Egypt is an image of heaven, or, more\ntruly, a translation and descent of all things which are ordered and\ntransacted there,--that it is, in truth, if we may say so, to be the\ntemple of the whole world? And yet, as it becomes the prudent man to\nknow all things beforehand, ye ought not to be ignorant of this, that\nthere is a time coming when it shall appear that the Egyptians have\nall in vain, with pious mind, and with most scrupulous diligence,\nwaited on the divinity, and when all their holy worship shall come to\nnought, and be found to be in vain.\"\n\nHermes then follows out at great length the statements of this\npassage, in which he seems to predict the present time, in which\nthe Christian religion is overthrowing all lying figments with\na vehemence and liberty proportioned to its superior truth and\nholiness, in order that the grace of the true Saviour may deliver\nmen from those gods which man has made, and subject them to that\nGod by whom man was made. But when Hermes predicts these things, he\nspeaks as one who is a friend to these same mockeries of demons,\nand does not clearly express the name of Christ. On the contrary,\nhe deplores, as if it had already taken place, the future abolition\nof those things by the observance of which there was maintained in\nEgypt a resemblance of heaven,--he bears witness to Christianity\nby a kind of mournful prophecy. Now it was with reference to such\nthat the apostle said, that \"knowing God, they glorified Him not as\nGod, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations,\nand their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be\nwise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible\nGod into the likeness of the image of corruptible man,\"[316] and so\non, for the whole passage is too long to quote. For Hermes makes\nmany such statements agreeable to the truth concerning the one true\nGod who fashioned this world. And I know not how he has become so\nbewildered by that \"darkening of the heart\" as to stumble into the\nexpression of a desire that men should always continue in subjection\nto those gods which he confesses to be made by men, and to bewail\ntheir future removal; as if there could be anything more wretched\nthan mankind tyrannized over by the work of his own hands, since man,\nby worshipping the works of his own hands, may more easily cease to\nbe man, than the works of his hands can, through his worship of them,\nbecome gods. For it can sooner happen that man, who has received\nan honourable position, may, through lack of understanding, become\ncomparable to the beasts, than that the works of man may become\npreferable to the work of God, made in His own image, that is, to man\nhimself. Wherefore deservedly is man left to fall away from Him who\nmade him, when he prefers to himself that which he himself has made.\n\nFor these vain, deceitful, pernicious, sacrilegious things did the\nEgyptian Hermes sorrow, because he knew that the time was coming when\nthey should be removed. But his sorrow was as impudently expressed\nas his knowledge was imprudently obtained; for it was not the Holy\nSpirit who revealed these things to him, as He had done to the holy\nprophets, who, foreseeing these things, said with exultation, \"If\na man shall make gods, lo, they are no gods;\"[317] and in another\nplace, \"And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that\nI will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they\nshall no more be remembered.\"[318] But the holy Isaiah prophesies\nexpressly concerning Egypt in reference to this matter, saying, \"And\nthe idols of Egypt shall be moved at His presence, and their heart\nshall be overcome in them,\"[319] and other things to the same effect.\nAnd with the prophet are to be classed those who rejoiced that that\nwhich they knew was to come had actually come,--as Simeon, or Anna,\nwho immediately recognised Jesus when He was born, or Elisabeth, who\nin the Spirit recognised Him when He was conceived, or Peter, who\nsaid by the revelation of the Father, \"Thou art Christ, the Son of\nthe living God.\"[320] But to this Egyptian those spirits indicated\nthe time of their own destruction, who also, when the Lord was\npresent in the flesh, said with trembling, \"Art Thou come hither to\ndestroy us before the time?\"[321] meaning by destruction before the\ntime, either that very destruction which they expected to come, but\nwhich they did not think would come so suddenly as it appeared to\nhave done, or only that destruction which consisted in their being\nbrought into contempt by being made known. And, indeed, this was a\ndestruction before the time, that is, before the time of judgment,\nwhen they are to be punished with eternal damnation, together with\nall men who are implicated in their wickedness, as the true religion\ndeclares, which neither errs nor leads into error; for it is not like\nhim who, blown hither and thither by every wind of doctrine, and\nmixing true things with things which are false, bewails as about to\nperish a religion which he afterwards confesses to be error.\n\n\n  24. _How Hermes openly confessed the error of his forefathers, the\n        coming destruction of which he nevertheless bewailed._\n\nAfter a long interval, Hermes again comes back to the subject of\nthe gods which men have made, saying as follows: \"But enough on\nthis subject. Let us return to man and to reason, that divine gift\non account of which man has been called a rational animal. For the\nthings which have been said concerning man, wonderful though they\nare, are less wonderful than those which have been said concerning\nreason. For man to discover the divine nature, and to make it,\nsurpasses the wonder of all other wonderful things. Because,\ntherefore, our forefathers erred very far with respect to the\nknowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of\nattention to their worship and service, they invented this art of\nmaking gods; and this art once invented, they associated with it a\nsuitable virtue borrowed from universal nature, and, being incapable\nof making souls, they evoked those of demons or of angels, and united\nthem with these holy images and divine mysteries, in order that\nthrough these souls the images might have power to do good or harm to\nmen.\" I know not whether the demons themselves could have been made,\neven by adjuration, to confess as he has confessed in these words:\n\"Because our forefathers erred very far with respect to the knowledge\nof the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to\ntheir worship and service, they invented the art of making gods.\"\nDoes he say that it was a moderate degree of error which resulted\nin their discovery of the art of making gods, or was he content to\nsay \"they erred?\" No; he must needs add \"very far,\" and say, \"_They\nerred very far._\" It was this great error and incredulity, then,\nof their forefathers who did not attend to the worship and service\nof the gods, which was the origin of the art of making gods. And\nyet this wise man grieves over the ruin of this art at some future\ntime, as if it were a divine religion. Is he not verily compelled by\ndivine influence, on the one hand, to reveal the past error of his\nforefathers, and by a diabolical influence, on the other hand, to\nbewail the future punishment of demons? For if their forefathers, by\nerring very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, through\nincredulity and aversion of mind from their worship and service,\ninvented the art of making gods, what wonder is it that all that is\ndone by this detestable art, which is opposed to the divine religion,\nshould be taken away by that religion, when truth corrects error,\nfaith refutes incredulity, and conversion rectifies aversion?\n\nFor if he had only said, without mentioning the cause, that his\nforefathers had discovered the art of making gods, it would have\nbeen our duty, if we paid any regard to what is right and pious, to\nconsider and to see that they could never have attained to this art\nif they had not erred from the truth, if they had believed those\nthings which are worthy of God, if they had attended to divine\nworship and service. However, if we alone should say that the causes\nof this art were to be found in the great error and incredulity of\nmen, and aversion of the mind erring from and unfaithful to divine\nreligion, the impudence of those who resist the truth were in some\nway to be borne with; but when he who admires in man, above all other\nthings, this power which it has been granted him to practise, and\nsorrows because a time is coming when all those figments of gods\ninvented by men shall even be commanded by the laws to be taken\naway,--when even this man confesses nevertheless, and explains the\ncauses which led to the discovery of this art, saying that their\nancestors, through great error and incredulity, and through not\nattending to the worship and service of the gods, invented this art\nof making gods,--what ought we to say, or rather to do, but to give\nto the Lord our God all the thanks we are able, because He has taken\naway those things by causes the contrary of those which led to their\ninstitution? For that which the prevalence of error instituted, the\nway of truth took away; that which incredulity instituted, faith took\naway; that which aversion from divine worship and service instituted,\nconversion to the one true and holy God took away. Nor was this the\ncase only in Egypt, for which country alone the spirit of the demons\nlamented in Hermes, but in all the earth, which sings to the Lord a\nnew song,[322] as the truly holy and truly prophetic Scriptures have\npredicted, in which it is written, \"Sing unto the Lord a new song;\nsing unto the Lord, all the earth.\" For the title of this psalm is,\n\"When the house was built after the captivity.\" For a house is being\nbuilt to the Lord in all the earth, even the city of God, which is\nthe holy Church, after that captivity in which demons held captive\nthose men who, through faith in God, became living stones in the\nhouse. For although man made gods, it did not follow that he who made\nthem was not held captive by them, when, by worshipping them, he was\ndrawn into fellowship with them,--into the fellowship not of stolid\nidols, but of cunning demons; for what are idols but what they are\nrepresented to be in the same Scriptures, \"They have eyes, but they\ndo not see,\"[323] and, though artistically fashioned, are still\nwithout life and sensation? But unclean spirits, associated through\nthat wicked art with these same idols, have miserably taken captive\nthe souls of their worshippers, by bringing them down into fellowship\nwith themselves. Whence the apostle says, \"We know that an idol is\nnothing, but those things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice\nto demons, and not to God; and I would not ye should have fellowship\nwith demons.\"[324] After this captivity, therefore, in which men were\nheld by malign demons, the house of God is being built in all the\nearth; whence the title of that psalm in which it is said, \"Sing unto\nthe Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the\nLord, bless His name; declare well His salvation from day to day.\nDeclare His glory among the nations, among all people His wonderful\nthings. For great is the Lord, and much to be praised: He is terrible\nabove all gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons: but the\nLord made the heavens.\"[325]\n\nWherefore he who sorrowed because a time was coming when the worship\nof idols should be abolished, and the domination of the demons over\nthose who worshipped them, wished, under the influence of a demon,\nthat that captivity should always continue, at the cessation of which\nthat psalm celebrates the building of the house of the Lord in all\nthe earth. Hermes foretold these things with grief, the prophet with\njoyfulness; and because the Spirit is victorious who sang these things\nthrough the ancient prophets, even Hermes himself was compelled in a\nwonderful manner to confess, that those very things which he wished not\nto be removed, and at the prospect of whose removal he was sorrowful,\nhad been instituted, not by prudent, faithful, and religious, but by\nerring and unbelieving men, averse to the worship and service of the\ngods. And although he calls them gods, nevertheless, when he says\nthat they were made by such men as we certainly ought not to be, he\nshows, whether he will or not, that they are not to be worshipped by\nthose who do not resemble these image-makers, that is, by prudent,\nfaithful, and religious men, at the same time also making it manifest\nthat the very men who made them involved themselves in the worship\nof those as gods who were not gods. For true is the saying of the\nprophet, \"If a man _make_ gods, lo, they are no gods.\"[326] Such gods,\ntherefore, acknowledged by such worshippers and made by such men,\ndid Hermes call \"gods made by men,\" that is to say, demons, through\nsome art of I know not what description, bound by the chains of their\nown lusts to images. But, nevertheless, he did not agree with that\nopinion of the Platonic Apuleius, of which we have already shown the\nincongruity and absurdity, namely, that they were interpreters and\nintercessors between the gods whom God made, and men whom the same\nGod made, bringing to God the prayers of men, and from God the gifts\ngiven in answer to these prayers. For it is exceedingly stupid to\nbelieve that gods whom men have made have more influence with gods\nwhom God has made than men themselves have, whom the very same God has\nmade. And consider, too, that it is a demon which, bound by a man to\nan image by means of an impious art, has been made a god, but a god\nto such a man only, not to every man. What kind of god, therefore, is\nthat which no man would make but one erring, incredulous, and averse\nto the true God? Moreover, if the demons which are worshipped in the\ntemples, being introduced by some kind of strange art into images, that\nis, into visible representations of themselves, by those men who by\nthis art made gods when they were straying away from, and were averse\nto the worship and service of the gods,--if, I say, those demons are\nneither mediators nor interpreters between men and the gods, both on\naccount of their own most wicked and base manners, and because men,\nthough erring, incredulous, and averse from the worship and service of\nthe gods, are nevertheless beyond doubt better than the demons whom\nthey themselves have evoked, then it remains to be affirmed that what\npower they possess they possess as demons, doing harm by bestowing\npretended benefits,--harm all the greater for the deception,--or else\nopenly and undisguisedly doing evil to men. They cannot, however, do\nanything of this kind unless where they are permitted by the deep and\nsecret providence of God, and then only so far as they are permitted.\nWhen, however, they are permitted, it is not because they, being\nmidway between men and the gods, have through the friendship of the\ngods great power over men; for these demons cannot possibly be friends\nto the good gods who dwell in the holy and heavenly habitation, by\nwhom we mean holy angels and rational creatures, whether thrones, or\ndominations, or principalities, or powers, from whom they are as far\nseparated in disposition and character as vice is distant from virtue,\nwickedness from goodness.\n\n\n  25. _Concerning those things which may be common to the holy angels\n                             and to men._\n\nWherefore we must by no means seek, through the supposed mediation\nof demons, to avail ourselves of the benevolence or beneficence of\nthe gods, or rather of the good angels, but through resembling them\nin the possession of a good will, through which we are with them,\nand live with them, and worship with them the same God, although\nwe cannot see them with the eyes of our flesh. But it is not in\nlocality we are distant from them, but in merit of life, caused by\nour miserable unlikeness to them in will, and by the weakness of\nour character; for the mere fact of our dwelling on earth under the\nconditions of life in the flesh does not prevent our fellowship with\nthem. It is only prevented when we, in the impurity of our hearts,\nmind earthly things. But in this present time, while we are being\nhealed that we may eventually be as they are, we are brought near to\nthem by faith, if by their assistance we believe that He who is their\nblessedness is also ours.\n\n\n    26. _That all the religion of the pagans has reference to dead\n                                 men._\n\nIt is certainly a remarkable thing how this Egyptian, when expressing\nhis grief that a time was coming when those things would be taken\naway from Egypt, which he confesses to have been invented by men\nerring, incredulous, and averse to the service of divine religion,\nsays, among other things, \"Then shall that land, the most holy place\nof shrines and temples, be full of sepulchres and dead men,\" as if,\nin sooth, if these things were not taken away, men would not die!\nas if dead bodies could be buried elsewhere than in the ground! as\nif, as time advanced, the number of sepulchres must not necessarily\nincrease in proportion to the increase of the number of the dead!\nBut they who are of a perverse mind, and opposed to us, suppose that\nwhat he grieves for is that the memorials of our martyrs were to\nsucceed to their temples and shrines, in order, forsooth, that they\nmay have grounds for thinking that gods were worshipped by the pagans\nin temples, but that dead men are worshipped by us in sepulchres.\nFor with such blindness do impious men, as it were, stumble over\nmountains, and will not see the things which strike their own eyes,\nthat they do not attend to the fact that in all the literature of\nthe pagans there are not found any, or scarcely any gods, who have\nnot been men, to whom, when dead, divine honours have been paid. I\nwill not enlarge on the fact that Varro says that all dead men are\nthought by them to be gods Manes, and proves it by those sacred\nrites which are performed in honour of almost all the dead, among\nwhich he mentions funeral games, considering this the very highest\nproof of divinity, because games are only wont to be celebrated in\nhonour of divinities. Hermes himself, of whom we are now treating,\nin that same book in which, as if foretelling future things, he\nsays with sorrow, \"Then shall that land, the most holy place of\nshrines and temples, be full of sepulchres and dead men,\" testifies\nthat the gods of Egypt were dead men. For, having said that their\nforefathers, erring very far with respect to the knowledge of the\ngods, incredulous and inattentive to the divine worship and service,\ninvented the art of making gods, with which art, when invented, they\nassociated the appropriate virtue which is inherent in universal\nnature, and by mixing up that virtue with this art, they called forth\nthe souls of demons or of angels (for they could not make souls),\nand caused them to take possession of, or associate themselves with\nholy images and divine mysteries, in order that through these souls\nthe images might have power to do good or harm to men;--having said\nthis, he goes on, as it were, to prove it by illustrations, saying,\n\"Thy grandsire, O \u00c6sculapius, the first discoverer of medicine,\nto whom a temple was consecrated in a mountain of Libya, near to\nthe shore of the crocodiles, in which temple lies his earthly man,\nthat is, his body,--for the better part of him, or rather the whole\nof him, if the whole man is in the intelligent life, went back to\nheaven,--affords even now by his divinity all those helps to infirm\nmen, which formerly he was wont to afford to them by the art of\nmedicine.\" He says, therefore, that a dead man was worshipped as a\ngod in that place where he had his sepulchre. He deceives men by a\nfalsehood, for the man \"went back to heaven.\" Then he adds, \"Does not\nHermes, who was my grandsire, and whose name I bear, abiding in the\ncountry which is called by his name, help and preserve all mortals\nwho come to him from every quarter?\" For this elder Hermes, that is,\nMercury, who, he says, was his grandsire, is said to be buried in\nHermopolis, that is, in the city called by his name; so here are two\ngods whom he affirms to have been men, \u00c6sculapius and Mercury. Now\nconcerning \u00c6sculapius, both the Greeks and the Latins think the same\nthing; but as to Mercury, there are many who do not think that he was\nformerly a mortal, though Hermes testifies that he was his grandsire.\nBut are these two different individuals who were called by the same\nname? I will not dispute much whether they are different individuals\nor not. It is sufficient to know that this Mercury of whom Hermes\nspeaks is, as well as \u00c6sculapius, a god who once was a man, according\nto the testimony of this same Trismegistus, esteemed so great by his\ncountrymen, and also the grandson of Mercury himself.\n\nHermes goes on to say, \"But do we know how many good things Isis,\nthe wife of Osiris, bestows when she is propitious, and what great\nopposition she can offer when enraged?\" Then, in order to show that\nthere were gods made by men through this art, he goes on to say,\n\"For it is easy for earthly and mundane gods to be angry, being\nmade and composed by men out of either nature;\" thus giving us to\nunderstand that he believed that demons were formerly the souls of\ndead men, which, as he says, by means of a certain art invented by\nmen very far in error, incredulous, and irreligious, were caused\nto take possession of images, because they who made such gods were\nnot able to make souls. When, therefore, he says \"either nature,\"\nhe means soul and body,--the demon being the soul, and the image\nthe body. What, then, becomes of that mournful complaint, that the\nland of Egypt, the most holy place of shrines and temples, was to be\nfull of sepulchres and dead men? Verily, the fallacious spirit, by\nwhose inspiration Hermes spoke these things, was compelled to confess\nthrough him that even already that land was full of sepulchres and of\ndead men, whom they were worshipping as gods. But it was the grief of\nthe demons which was expressing itself through his mouth, who were\nsorrowing on account of the punishments which were about to fall upon\nthem at the tombs of the martyrs. For in many such places they are\ntortured and compelled to confess, and are cast out of the bodies of\nmen, of which they had taken possession.\n\n\n     27. _Concerning the nature of the honour which the Christians\n                        pay to their martyrs._\n\nBut, nevertheless, we do not build temples, and ordain priests,\nrites, and sacrifices for these same martyrs; for they are not\nour gods, but their God is our God. Certainly we honour their\nreliquaries, as the memorials of holy men of God who strove for the\ntruth even to the death of their bodies, that the true religion might\nbe made known, and false and fictitious religions exposed. For if\nthere were some before them who thought that these religions were\nreally false and fictitious, they were afraid to give expression\nto their convictions. But who ever heard a priest of the faithful,\nstanding at an altar built for the honour and worship of God over\nthe holy body of some martyr, say in the prayers, I offer to thee a\nsacrifice, O Peter, or O Paul, or O Cyprian? for it is to God that\nsacrifices are offered at their tombs,--the God who made them both\nmen and martyrs, and associated them with holy angels in celestial\nhonour; and the reason why we pay such honours to their memory\nis, that by so doing we may both give thanks to the true God for\ntheir victories, and, by recalling them afresh to remembrance, may\nstir ourselves up to imitate them by seeking to obtain like crowns\nand palms, calling to our help that same God on whom they called.\nTherefore, whatever honours the religious may pay in the places of\nthe martyrs, they are but honours rendered to their memory,[327] not\nsacred rites or sacrifices offered to dead men as to gods. And even\nsuch as bring thither food,--which, indeed, is not done by the better\nChristians, and in most places of the world is not done at all,--do\nso in order that it may be sanctified to them through the merits of\nthe martyrs, in the name of the Lord of the martyrs, first presenting\nthe food and offering prayer, and thereafter taking it away to be\neaten, or to be in part bestowed upon the needy.[328] But he who\nknows the one sacrifice of Christians, which is the sacrifice offered\nin those places, also knows that these are not sacrifices offered to\nthe martyrs. It is, then, neither with divine honours nor with human\ncrimes, by which they worship their gods, that we honour our martyrs;\nneither do we offer sacrifices to them, or convert the crimes of the\ngods into their sacred rites. For let those who will and can read\nthe letter of Alexander to his mother Olympias, in which he tells\nthe things which were revealed to him by the priest Leon, and let\nthose who have read it recall to memory what it contains, that they\nmay see what great abominations have been handed down to memory, not\nby poets, but by the mystic writings of the Egyptians, concerning\nthe goddess Isis, the wife of Osiris, and the parents of both, all\nof whom, according to these writings, were royal personages. Isis,\nwhen sacrificing to her parents, is said to have discovered a crop\nof barley, of which she brought some ears to the king her husband,\nand his councillor Mercurius, and hence they identify her with Ceres.\nThose who read the letter may there see what was the character of\nthose people to whom when dead sacred rites were instituted as\nto gods, and what those deeds of theirs were which furnished the\noccasion for these rites. Let them not once dare to compare in any\nrespect those people, though they hold them to be gods, to our holy\nmartyrs, though we do not hold them to be gods. For we do not ordain\npriests and offer sacrifices to our martyrs, as they do to their\ndead men, for that would be incongruous, undue, and unlawful, such\nbeing due only to God; and thus we do not delight them with their\nown crimes, or with such shameful plays as those in which the crimes\nof the gods are celebrated, which are either real crimes committed\nby them at a time when they were men, or else, if they never were\nmen, fictitious crimes invented for the pleasure of noxious demons.\nThe god of Socrates, if he had a god, cannot have belonged to this\nclass of demons. But perhaps they who wished to excel in this art of\nmaking gods, imposed a god of this sort on a man who was a stranger\nto, and innocent of any connection with that art. What need we say\nmore? No one who is even moderately wise imagines that demons are to\nbe worshipped on account of the blessed life which is to be after\ndeath. But perhaps they will say that all the gods are good, but that\nof the demons some are bad and some good, and that it is the good who\nare to be worshipped, in order that through them we may attain to the\neternally blessed life. To the examination of this opinion we will\ndevote the following book.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[291] Wisdom vii. 24-27.\n\n[292] \"Sapiens,\" that is, a wise man, one who had attained to wisdom.\n\n[293] Finem boni.\n\n[294] Dii majorum gentium.\n\n[295] Book i. 13.\n\n[296] Rom. i. 19, 20.\n\n[297] Col. ii. 8.\n\n[298] Rom. i. 19, 20.\n\n[299] Acts xvii. 28.\n\n[300] Rom. i. 21-23.\n\n[301] _De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 43. Comp. _Retract._ ii. 4, 2.\n\n[302] Liberating Jewish slaves, and sending gifts to the temple. See\nJosephus, _Ant._ xii. 2.\n\n[303] Gen. i. 1, 2.\n\n[304] Spiritus.\n\n[305] Ex. iii. 14.\n\n[306] Rom. i. 20.\n\n[307] Ch. 14.\n\n[308] _De Deo Socratis._\n\n[309] Virgil, _\u00c6n._ 7. 338.\n\n[310] Virgil, _\u00c6n._ 4. 492, 493.\n\n[311] Virgil, _Ec._ 8. 99.\n\n[312] Pliny (_Hist. Nat._ xxviii. 2) and others quote the law as\nrunning: \"Qui fruges incantasit, qui malum carmen incantasit.... neu\nalienam segetem pelexeris.\"\n\n[313] Before Claudius, the prefect of Africa, a heathen.\n\n[314] Another reading, \"whom they could not know, though near to\nthemselves.\"\n\n[315] These quotations are from a dialogue between Hermes and\n\u00c6sculapius, which is said to have been translated into Latin by\nApuleius.\n\n[316] Rom. i. 21.\n\n[317] Jer. xvi. 20.\n\n[318] Zech. xiii. 2.\n\n[319] Isa. xix. 1.\n\n[320] Matt. xvi. 16.\n\n[321] Matt. viii. 29.\n\n[322] Ps. xcvi. 1.\n\n[323] Ps. cxv. 5, etc.\n\n[324] 1 Cor. x. 19, 20.\n\n[325] Ps. xcvi. 1-5.\n\n[326] Jer. xvi. 20.\n\n[327] Ornamenta memoriarum.\n\n[328] Comp. _The Confessions_, vi. 2.\n\n\n\n\n                              BOOK NINTH.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  HAVING IN THE PRECEDING BOOK SHOWN THAT THE WORSHIP OF DEMONS MUST\n      BE ABJURED, SINCE THEY IN A THOUSAND WAYS PROCLAIM THEMSELVES\n      TO BE WICKED SPIRITS, AUGUSTINE IN THIS BOOK MEETS THOSE WHO\n      ALLEGE A DISTINCTION AMONG DEMONS, SOME BEING EVIL, WHILE\n      OTHERS ARE GOOD; AND, HAVING EXPLODED THIS DISTINCTION, HE\n      PROVES THAT TO NO DEMON, BUT TO CHRIST ALONE, BELONGS THE\n      OFFICE OF PROVIDING MEN WITH ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS.\n\n\n  1. _The point at which the discussion has arrived, and what remains\n                            to be handled._\n\nSome have advanced the opinion that there are both good and bad gods;\nbut some, thinking more respectfully of the gods have attributed\nto them so much honour and praise as to preclude the supposition\nof any god being wicked. But those who have maintained that there\nare wicked gods as well as good ones have included the demons under\nthe name \"gods,\" and sometimes, though more rarely, have called the\ngods demons; so that they admit that Jupiter, whom they make the\nking and head of all the rest, is called a demon by Homer.[329]\nThose, on the other hand, who maintain that the gods are all good,\nand far more excellent than the men who are justly called good, are\nmoved by the actions of the demons, which they can neither deny nor\nimpute to the gods whose goodness they affirm, to distinguish between\ngods and demons; so that, whenever they find anything offensive\nin the deeds or sentiments by which unseen spirits manifest their\npower, they believe this to proceed not from the gods, but from\nthe demons. At the same time they believe that, as no god can hold\ndirect intercourse with men, these demons hold the position of\nmediators, ascending with prayers, and returning with gifts. This\nis the opinion of the Platonists, the ablest and most esteemed of\ntheir philosophers, with whom we therefore chose to debate this\nquestion,--whether the worship of a number of gods is of any service\ntowards obtaining blessedness in the future life. And this is the\nreason why, in the preceding book, we have inquired how the demons,\nwho take pleasure in such things as good and wise men loathe and\nexecrate, in the sacrilegious and immoral fictions which the poets\nhave written, not of men, but of the gods themselves, and in the\nwicked and criminal violence of magical arts, can be regarded as\nmore nearly related and more friendly to the gods than men are, and\ncan mediate between good men and the good gods; and it has been\ndemonstrated that this is absolutely impossible.\n\n\n  2. _Whether among the demons, inferior to the gods, there are any\n      good spirits under whose guardianship the human soul might\n      reach true blessedness._\n\nThis book, then, ought, according to the promise made in the end of the\npreceding one, to contain a discussion, not of the difference which\nexists among the gods, who, according to the Platonists, are all good,\nnor of the difference between gods and demons, the former of whom they\nseparate by a wide interval from men, while the latter are placed\nintermediately between the gods and men, but of the difference, since\nthey make one, among the demons themselves. This we shall discuss so\nfar as it bears on our theme. It has been the common and usual belief\nthat some of the demons are bad, others good; and this opinion, whether\nit be that of the Platonists or any other sect, must by no means be\npassed over in silence, lest some one suppose he ought to cultivate\nthe good demons in order that by their mediation he may be accepted\nby the gods, all of whom he believes to be good, and that he may live\nwith them after death; whereas he would thus be ensnared in the toils\nof wicked spirits, and would wander far from the true God, with whom\nalone, and in whom alone, the human soul, that is to say, the soul that\nis rational and intellectual, is blessed.\n\n\n    3. _What Apuleius attributes to the demons, to whom, though he\n        does not deny them reason, he does not ascribe virtue._\n\nWhat, then, is the difference between good and evil demons? For the\nPlatonist Apuleius, in a treatise on this whole subject,[330] while\nhe says a great deal about their aerial bodies, has not a word to say\nof the spiritual virtues with which, if they were good, they must have\nbeen endowed. Not a word has he said, then, of that which could give\nthem happiness; but proof of their misery he has given, acknowledging\nthat their mind, by which they rank as reasonable beings, is not only\nnot imbued and fortified with virtue so as to resist all unreasonable\npassions, but that it is somehow agitated with tempestuous emotions,\nand is thus on a level with the mind of foolish men. His own words\nare: \"It is this class of demons the poets refer to, when, without\nserious error, they feign that the gods hate and love individuals\namong men, prospering and ennobling some, and opposing and distressing\nothers. Therefore pity, indignation, grief, joy, every human emotion is\nexperienced by the demons, with the same mental disturbance, and the\nsame tide of feeling and thought. These turmoils and tempests banish\nthem far from the tranquillity of the celestial gods.\" Can there be\nany doubt that in these words it is not some inferior part of their\nspiritual nature, but the very mind by which the demons hold their\nrank as rational beings, which he says is tossed with passion like a\nstormy sea? They cannot, then, be compared even to wise men, who with\nundisturbed mind resist these perturbations to which they are exposed\nin this life, and from which human infirmity is never exempt, and who\ndo not yield themselves to approve of or perpetrate anything which\nmight deflect them from the path of wisdom and law of rectitude. They\nresemble in character, though not in bodily appearance, wicked and\nfoolish men. I might indeed say they are worse, inasmuch as they have\ngrown old in iniquity, and incorrigible by punishment. Their mind, as\nApuleius says, is a sea tossed with tempest, having no rallying point\nof truth or virtue in their soul from which they can resist their\nturbulent and depraved emotions.\n\n\n      4. _The opinion of the Peripatetics and Stoics about mental\n                              emotions._\n\nAmong the philosophers there are two opinions about these mental\nemotions, which the Greeks call \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7, while some of our own writers,\nas Cicero, call them perturbations,[331] some affections, and some,\nto render the Greek word more accurately, passions. Some say that even\nthe wise man is subject to these perturbations, though moderated and\ncontrolled by reason, which imposes laws upon them, and so restrains\nthem within necessary bounds. This is the opinion of the Platonists\nand Aristotelians; for Aristotle was Plato's disciple, and the founder\nof the Peripatetic school. But others, as the Stoics, are of opinion\nthat the wise man is not subject to these perturbations. But Cicero,\nin his book _De Finibus_, shows that the Stoics are here at variance\nwith the Platonists and Peripatetics rather in words than in reality;\nfor the Stoics decline to apply the term \"goods\" to external and bodily\nadvantages,[332] because they reckon that the only good is virtue,\nthe art of living well, and this exists only in the mind. The other\nphilosophers, again, use the simple and customary phraseology, and\ndo not scruple to call these things goods, though in comparison of\nvirtue, which guides our life, they are little and of small esteem.\nAnd thus it is obvious that, whether these outward things are called\ngoods or advantages, they are held in the same estimation by both\nparties, and that in this matter the Stoics are pleasing themselves\nmerely with a novel phraseology. It seems, then, to me that in this\nquestion, whether the wise man is subject to mental passions, or\nwholly free from them, the controversy is one of words rather than of\nthings; for I think that, if the reality and not the mere sound of the\nwords is considered, the Stoics hold precisely the same opinion as the\nPlatonists and Peripatetics. For, omitting for brevity's sake other\nproofs which I might adduce in support of this opinion, I will state\nbut one which I consider conclusive. Aulus Gellius, a man of extensive\nerudition, and gifted with an eloquent and graceful style, relates,\nin his work entitled _Noctes Attic\u00e6_,[333] that he once made a voyage\nwith an eminent Stoic philosopher; and he goes on to relate fully and\nwith gusto what I shall barely state, that when the ship was tossed\nand in danger from a violent storm, the philosopher grew pale with\nterror. This was noticed by those on board, who, though themselves\nthreatened with death, were curious to see whether a philosopher would\nbe agitated like other men. When the tempest had passed over, and as\nsoon as their security gave them freedom to resume their talk, one\nof the passengers, a rich and luxurious Asiatic, begins to banter\nthe philosopher, and rally him because he had even become pale with\nfear, while he himself had been unmoved by the impending destruction.\nBut the philosopher availed himself of the reply of Aristippus the\nSocratic, who, on finding himself similarly bantered by a man of the\nsame character, answered, \"You had no cause for anxiety for the soul\nof a profligate debauchee, but I had reason to be alarmed for the soul\nof Aristippus.\" The rich man being thus disposed of, Aulus Gellius\nasked the philosopher, in the interests of science and not to annoy\nhim, what was the reason of his fear? And he, willing to instruct a man\nso zealous in the pursuit of knowledge, at once took from his wallet\na book of Epictetus the Stoic,[334] in which doctrines were advanced\nwhich precisely harmonized with those of Zeno and Chrysippus, the\nfounders of the Stoical school. Aulus Gellius says that he read in\nthis book that the Stoics maintain that there are certain impressions\nmade on the soul by external objects which they call _phantasi\u00e6_,\nand that it is not in the power of the soul to determine whether or\nwhen it shall be invaded by these. When these impressions are made by\nalarming and formidable objects, it must needs be that they move the\nsoul even of the wise man, so that for a little he trembles with fear,\nor is depressed by sadness, these impressions anticipating the work of\nreason and self-control; but this does not imply that the mind accepts\nthese evil impressions, or approves or consents to them. For this\nconsent is, they think, in a man's power; there being this difference\nbetween the mind of the wise man and that of the fool, that the fool's\nmind yields to these passions and consents to them, while that of the\nwise man, though it cannot help being invaded by them, yet retains\nwith unshaken firmness a true and steady persuasion of those things\nwhich it ought rationally to desire or avoid. This account of what\nAulus Gellius relates that he read in the book of Epictetus about the\nsentiments and doctrines of the Stoics I have given as well as I could,\nnot, perhaps, with his choice language, but with greater brevity, and,\nI think, with greater clearness. And if this be true, then there is no\ndifference, or next to none, between the opinion of the Stoics and that\nof the other philosophers regarding mental passions and perturbations,\nfor both parties agree in maintaining that the mind and reason of the\nwise man are not subject to these. And perhaps what the Stoics mean\nby asserting this, is that the wisdom which characterizes the wise\nman is clouded by no error and sullied by no taint, but, with this\nreservation that his wisdom remains undisturbed, he is exposed to the\nimpressions which the goods and ills of this life (or, as they prefer\nto call them, the advantages or disadvantages) make upon them. For we\nneed not say that if that philosopher had thought nothing of those\nthings which he thought he was forthwith to lose, life and bodily\nsafety, he would not have been so terrified by his danger as to betray\nhis fear by the pallor of his cheek. Nevertheless, he might suffer this\nmental disturbance, and yet maintain the fixed persuasion that life\nand bodily safety, which the violence of the tempest threatened to\ndestroy, are not those good things which make their possessors good,\nas the possession of righteousness does. But in so far as they persist\nthat we must call them not goods but advantages, they quarrel about\nwords and neglect things. For what difference does it make whether\ngoods or advantages be the better name, while the Stoic no less than\nthe Peripatetic is alarmed at the prospect of losing them, and while,\nthough they name them differently, they hold them in like esteem? Both\nparties assure us that, if urged to the commission of some immorality\nor crime by the threatened loss of these goods or advantages, they\nwould prefer to lose such things as preserve bodily comfort and\nsecurity rather than commit such things as violate righteousness. And\nthus the mind in which this resolution is well grounded suffers no\nperturbations to prevail with it in opposition to reason, even though\nthey assail the weaker parts of the soul; and not only so, but it\nrules over them, and, while it refuses its consent and resists them,\nadministers a reign of virtue. Such a character is ascribed to \u00c6neas\nby Virgil when he says,\n\n          \"He stands immovable by tears,\n           Nor tenderest words with pity hears.\"[335]\n\n\n   5. _That the passions which assail the souls of Christians do not\n           seduce them to vice, but exercise their virtue._\n\nWe need not at present give a careful and copious exposition of the\ndoctrine of Scripture, the sum of Christian knowledge, regarding\nthese passions. It subjects the mind itself to God, that He may\nrule and aid it, and the passions, again, to the mind, to moderate\nand bridle them, and turn them to righteous uses. In our ethics, we\ndo not so much inquire whether a pious soul is angry, as why he is\nangry; not whether he is sad, but what is the cause of his sadness;\nnot whether he fears, but what he fears. For I am not aware that any\nright thinking person would find fault with anger at a wrongdoer\nwhich seeks his amendment, or with sadness which intends relief to\nthe suffering, or with fear lest one in danger be destroyed. The\nStoics, indeed, are accustomed to condemn compassion.[336] But how\nmuch more honourable had it been in that Stoic we have been telling\nof, had he been disturbed by compassion prompting him to relieve a\nfellow-creature, than to be disturbed by the fear of shipwreck! Far\nbetter, and more humane, and more consonant with pious sentiments,\nare the words of Cicero in praise of C\u00e6sar, when he says, \"Among\nyour virtues none is more admirable and agreeable than your\ncompassion.\"[337] And what is compassion but a fellow-feeling for\nanother's misery, which prompts us to help him if we can? And this\nemotion is obedient to reason, when compassion is shown without\nviolating right, as when the poor are relieved, or the penitent\nforgiven. Cicero, who knew how to use language, did not hesitate to\ncall this a virtue, which the Stoics are not ashamed to reckon among\nthe vices, although, as the book of that eminent Stoic, Epictetus,\nquoting the opinions of Zeno and Chrysippus, the founders of the\nschool, has taught us, they admit that passions of this kind invade\nthe soul of the wise man, whom they would have to be free from all\nvice. Whence it follows that these very passions are not judged by\nthem to be vices, since they assail the wise man without forcing him\nto act against reason and virtue; and that, therefore, the opinion of\nthe Peripatetics or Platonists and of the Stoics is one and the same.\nBut, as Cicero says,[338] mere logomachy is the bane of these pitiful\nGreeks, who thirst for contention rather than for truth. However,\nit may justly be asked, whether our subjection to these affections,\neven while we follow virtue, is a part of the infirmity of this life?\nFor the holy angels feel no anger while they punish those whom the\neternal law of God consigns to punishment, no fellow-feeling with\nmisery while they relieve the miserable, no fear while they aid\nthose who are in danger; and yet ordinary language ascribes to them\nalso these mental emotions, because, though they have none of our\nweakness, their acts resemble the actions to which these emotions\nmove us; and thus even God Himself is said in Scripture to be angry,\nand yet without any perturbation. For this word is used of the effect\nof His vengeance, not of the disturbing mental affection.\n\n\n     6. _Of the passions which, according to Apuleius, agitate the\n   demons who are supposed by him to mediate between gods and men._\n\nDeferring for the present the question about the holy angels, let\nus examine the opinion of the Platonists, that the demons who\nmediate between gods and men are agitated by passions. For if their\nmind, though exposed to their incursion, still remained free and\nsuperior to them, Apuleius could not have said that their hearts\nare tossed with passions as the sea by stormy winds.[339] Their\nmind, then,--that superior part of their soul whereby they are\nrational beings, and which, if it actually exists in them, should\nrule and bridle the turbulent passions of the inferior parts of the\nsoul,--this mind of theirs, I say, is, according to the Platonist\nreferred to, tossed with a hurricane of passions. The mind of the\ndemons, therefore, is subject to the emotions of fear, anger, lust,\nand all similar affections. What part of them, then, is free, and\nendued with wisdom, so that they are pleasing to the gods, and the\nfit guides of men into purity of life, since their very highest part,\nbeing the slave of passion and subject to vice, only makes them more\nintent on deceiving and seducing, in proportion to the mental force\nand energy of desire they possess?\n\n\n  7. _That the Platonists maintain that the poets wrong the gods by\n      representing them as distracted by party feeling, to which the\n      demons, and not the gods, are subject._\n\nBut if any one says that it is not of all the demons, but only of the\nwicked, that the poets, not without truth, say that they violently\nlove or hate certain men,--for it was of them Apuleius said that they\nwere driven about by strong currents of emotion,--how can we accept\nthis interpretation, when Apuleius, in the very same connection,\nrepresents all the demons, and not only the wicked, as intermediate\nbetween gods and men by their aerial bodies? The fiction of the\npoets, according to him, consists in their making gods of demons,\nand giving them the names of gods, and assigning them as allies\nor enemies to individual men, using this poetical licence, though\nthey profess that the gods are very different in character from the\ndemons, and far exalted above them by their celestial abode and\nwealth of beatitude. This, I say, is the poets' fiction, to say that\nthese are gods who are not gods, and that, under the names of gods,\nthey fight among themselves about the men whom they love or hate\nwith keen partisan feeling. Apuleius says that this is not far from\nthe truth, since, though they are wrongfully called by the names\nof the gods, they are described in their own proper character as\ndemons. To this category, he says, belongs the Minerva of Homer, \"who\ninterposed in the ranks of the Greeks to restrain Achilles.\"[340]\nFor that this was Minerva he supposes to be poetical fiction; for he\nthinks that Minerva is a goddess, and he places her among the gods\nwhom he believes to be all good and blessed in the sublime ethereal\nregion, remote from intercourse with men. But that there was a demon\nfavourable to the Greeks and adverse to the Trojans, as another,\nwhom the same poet mentions under the name of Venus or Mars (gods\nexalted above earthly affairs in their heavenly habitations), was the\nTrojans' ally and the foe of the Greeks, and that these demons fought\nfor those they loved against those they hated,--in all this he owned\nthat the poets stated something very like the truth. For they made\nthese statements about beings to whom he ascribes the same violent\nand tempestuous passions as disturb men, and who are therefore\ncapable of loves and hatreds not justly formed, but formed in a\nparty spirit, as the spectators in races or hunts take fancies and\nprejudices. It seems to have been the great fear of this Platonist\nthat the poetical fictions should be believed of the gods, and not of\nthe demons who bore their names.\n\n\n   8. _How Apuleius defines the gods who dwell in heaven, the demons\n            who occupy the air, and men who inhabit earth._\n\nThe definition which Apuleius gives of demons, and in which he of\ncourse includes all demons, is that they are in nature animals, in soul\nsubject to passion, in mind reasonable, in body aerial, in duration\neternal. Now in these five qualities he has named absolutely nothing\nwhich is proper to good men and not also to bad. For when Apuleius had\nspoken of the celestials first, and had then extended his description\nso as to include an account of those who dwell far below on the earth,\nthat, after describing the two extremes of rational being, he might\nproceed to speak of the intermediate demons, he says, \"Men, therefore,\nwho are endowed with the faculty of reason and speech, whose soul is\nimmortal and their members mortal, who have weak and anxious spirits,\ndull and corruptible bodies, dissimilar characters, similar ignorance,\nwho are obstinate in their audacity, and persistent in their hope,\nwhose labour is vain, and whose fortune is ever on the wane, their\nrace immortal, themselves perishing, each generation replenished with\ncreatures whose life is swift and their wisdom slow, their death sudden\nand their life a wail,--these are the men who dwell on the earth.\"[341]\nIn recounting so many qualities which belong to the large proportion\nof men, did he forget that which is the property of the few when he\nspeaks of their wisdom being slow? If this had been omitted, this his\ndescription of the human race, so carefully elaborated, would have\nbeen defective. And when he commended the excellence of the gods,\nhe affirmed that they excelled in that very blessedness to which he\nthinks men must attain by wisdom. And therefore, if he had wished us\nto believe that some of the demons are good, he should have inserted\nin his description something by which we might see that they have, in\ncommon with the gods, some share of blessedness, or, in common with\nmen, some wisdom. But, as it is, he has mentioned no good quality by\nwhich the good may be distinguished from the bad. For although he\nrefrained from giving a full account of their wickedness, through\nfear of offending, not themselves but their worshippers, for whom he\nwas writing, yet he sufficiently indicated to discerning readers what\nopinion he had of them; for only in the one article of the eternity\nof their bodies does he assimilate them to the gods, all of whom, he\nasserts, are good and blessed, and absolutely free from what he himself\ncalls the stormy passions of the demons; and as to the soul, he quite\nplainly affirms that they resemble men and not the gods, and that this\nresemblance lies not in the possession of wisdom, which even men can\nattain to, but in the perturbation of passions which sway the foolish\nand wicked, but is so ruled by the good and wise that they prefer not\nto admit rather than to conquer it. For if he had wished it to be\nunderstood that the demons resembled the gods in the eternity not of\ntheir bodies but of their souls, he would certainly have admitted men\nto share in this privilege, because, as a Platonist, he of course must\nhold that the human soul is eternal. Accordingly, when describing this\nrace of living beings, he said that their souls were immortal, their\nmembers mortal. And, consequently, if men have not eternity in common\nwith the gods because they have mortal bodies, demons have eternity in\ncommon with the gods because their bodies are immortal.\n\n\n   9. _Whether the intercession of the demons can secure for men the\n                  friendship of the celestial gods._\n\nHow, then, can men hope for a favourable introduction to the\nfriendship of the gods by such mediators as these, who are, like men,\ndefective in that which is the better part of every living creature,\nviz. the soul, and who resemble the gods only in the body, which is\nthe inferior part? For a living creature or animal consists of soul\nand body, and of these two parts the soul is undoubtedly the better;\neven though vicious and weak, it is obviously better than even the\nsoundest and strongest body, for the greater excellence of its nature\nis not reduced to the level of the body even by the pollution of\nvice, as gold, even when tarnished, is more precious than the purest\nsilver or lead. And yet these mediators, by whose interposition\nthings human and divine are to be harmonized, have an eternal body\nin common with the gods, and a vicious soul in common with men,--as\nif the religion by which these demons are to unite gods and men\nwere a bodily, and not a spiritual matter. What wickedness, then,\nor punishment has suspended these false and deceitful mediators, as\nit were head downwards, so that their inferior part, their body,\nis linked to the gods above, and their superior part, the soul,\nbound to men beneath; united to the celestial gods by the part that\nserves, and miserable, together with the inhabitants of earth, by\nthe part that rules? For the body is the servant, as Sallust says:\n\"We use the soul to rule, the body to obey;\"[342] adding, \"the one\nwe have in common with the gods, the other with the brutes.\" For he\nwas here speaking of men; and they have, like the brutes, a mortal\nbody. These demons, whom our philosophic friends have provided for\nus as mediators with the gods, may indeed say of the soul and body,\nthe one we have in common with the gods, the other with men; but,\nas I said, they are as it were suspended and bound head downwards,\nhaving the slave, the body, in common with the gods, the master, the\nsoul, in common with miserable men,--their inferior part exalted,\ntheir superior part depressed. And therefore, if any one supposes\nthat, because they are not subject, like terrestrial animals, to the\nseparation of soul and body by death, they therefore resemble the\ngods in their eternity, their body must not be considered a chariot\nof an eternal triumph, but rather the chain of an eternal punishment.\n\n\n   10. _That, according to Plotinus, men, whose body is mortal, are\n          less wretched than demons, whose body is eternal._\n\nPlotinus, whose memory is quite recent,[343] enjoys the reputation\nof having understood Plato better than any other of his disciples.\nIn speaking of human souls, he says, \"The Father in compassion made\ntheir bonds mortal;\"[344] that is to say, he considered it due to the\nFather's mercy that men, having a mortal body, should not be for ever\nconfined in the misery of this life. But of this mercy the demons have\nbeen judged unworthy, and they have received, in conjunction with a\nsoul subject to passions, a body not mortal like man's, but eternal.\nFor they should have been happier than men if they had, like men, had a\nmortal body, and, like the gods, a blessed soul. And they should have\nbeen equal to men, if in conjunction with a miserable soul they had\nat least received, like men, a mortal body, so that death might have\nfreed them from trouble, if, at least, they should have attained some\ndegree of piety. But, as it is, they are not only no happier than men,\nhaving, like them, a miserable soul, they are also more wretched, being\neternally bound to the body; for he does not leave us to infer that by\nsome progress in wisdom and piety they can become gods, but expressly\nsays that they are demons for ever.\n\n\n  11. _Of the opinion of the Platonists, that the souls of men become\n                       demons when disembodied._\n\nHe[345] says, indeed, that the souls of men are demons, and that men\nbecome _Lares_ if they are good, _Lemures_ or _Larv\u00e6_ if they are\nbad, and _Manes_ if it is uncertain whether they deserve well or ill.\nWho does not see at a glance that this is a mere whirlpool sucking\nmen to moral destruction? For, however wicked men have been, if they\nsuppose they shall become Larv\u00e6 or divine Manes, they will become\nthe worse the more love they have for inflicting injury; for, as\nthe Larv\u00e6 are hurtful demons made out of wicked men, these men must\nsuppose that after death they will be invoked with sacrifices and\ndivine honours that they may inflict injuries. But this question we\nmust not pursue. He also states that the blessed are called in Greek\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, because they are good souls, that is to say, good demons,\nconfirming his opinion that the souls of men are demons.\n\n\n     12. _Of the three opposite qualities by which the Platonists\n      distinguish between the nature of men and that of demons._\n\nBut at present we are speaking of those beings whom he described as\nbeing properly intermediate between gods and men, in nature animals,\nin mind rational, in soul subject to passion, in body aerial, in\nduration eternal. When he had distinguished the gods, whom he placed\nin the highest heaven, from men, whom he placed on earth, not only by\nposition but also by the unequal dignity of their natures, he concluded\nin these words: \"You have here two kinds of animals: the gods, widely\ndistinguished from men by sublimity of abode, perpetuity of life,\nperfection of nature; for their habitations are separated by so wide\nan interval that there can be no intimate communication between them,\nand while the vitality of the one is eternal and indefeasible, that\nof the others is fading and precarious, and while the spirits of the\ngods are exalted in bliss, those of men are sunk in miseries.\"[346]\nHere I find three opposite qualities ascribed to the extremes of being,\nthe highest and lowest. For, after mentioning the three qualities for\nwhich we are to admire the gods, he repeated, though in other words,\nthe same three as a foil to the defects of man. The three qualities\nare, \"sublimity of abode, perpetuity of life, perfection of nature.\"\nThese he again mentioned so as to bring out their contrasts in man's\ncondition. As he had mentioned \"sublimity of abode,\" he says, \"Their\nhabitations are separated by so wide an interval;\" as he had mentioned\n\"perpetuity of life,\" he says, that \"while divine life is eternal and\nindefeasible, human life is fading and precarious;\" and as he had\nmentioned \"perfection of nature,\" he says, that \"while the spirits of\nthe gods are exalted in bliss, those of men are sunk in miseries.\"\nThese three things, then, he predicates of the gods, exaltation,\neternity, blessedness; and of man he predicates the opposite, lowliness\nof habitation, mortality, misery.\n\n\n  13. _How the demons can mediate between gods and men if they have\n      nothing in common with both, being neither blessed like the\n      gods, nor miserable like men._\n\nIf, now, we endeavour to find between these opposites the mean occupied\nby the demons, there can be no question as to their local position;\nfor, between the highest and lowest place, there is a place which\nis rightly considered and called the middle place. The other two\nqualities remain, and to them we must give greater care, that we may\nsee whether they are altogether foreign to the demons, or how they are\nso bestowed upon them without infringing upon their mediate position.\nWe may dismiss the idea that they are foreign to them. For we cannot\nsay that the demons, being rational animals, are neither blessed nor\nwretched, as we say of the beasts and plants, which are void of feeling\nand reason, or as we say of the middle place, that it is neither the\nhighest nor the lowest. The demons, being rational, must be either\nmiserable or blessed. And, in like manner, we cannot say that they\nare neither mortal nor immortal; for all living things either live\neternally or end life in death. Our author, besides, stated that the\ndemons are eternal. What remains for us to suppose, then, but that\nthese mediate beings are assimilated to the gods in one of the two\nremaining qualities, and to men in the other? For if they received both\nfrom above, or both from beneath, they should no longer be mediate, but\neither rise to the gods above, or sink to men beneath. Therefore, as\nit has been demonstrated that they must possess these two qualities,\nthey will hold their middle place if they receive one from each party.\nConsequently, as they cannot receive their eternity from beneath,\nbecause it is not there to receive, they must get it from above; and\naccordingly they have no choice but to complete their mediate position\nby accepting misery from men.\n\nAccording to the Platonists, then, the gods, who occupy the highest\nplace, enjoy eternal blessedness, or blessed eternity; men, who\noccupy the lowest, a mortal misery, or a miserable mortality; and\nthe demons, who occupy the mean, a miserable eternity, or an eternal\nmisery. As to those five things which Apuleius included in his\ndefinition of demons, he did not show, as he promised, that the\ndemons are mediate. For three of them, that their nature is animal,\ntheir mind rational, their soul subject to passions, he said that\nthey have in common with men; one thing, their eternity, in common\nwith the gods; and one proper to themselves, their aerial body. How,\nthen, are they intermediate, when they have three things in common\nwith the lowest, and only one in common with the highest? Who does\nnot see that the intermediate position is abandoned in proportion\nas they tend to, and are depressed towards, the lowest extreme? But\nperhaps we are to accept them as intermediate because of their one\nproperty of an aerial body, as the two extremes have each their\nproper body, the gods an ethereal, men a terrestrial body, and\nbecause two of the qualities they possess in common with man they\npossess also in common with the gods, namely, their animal nature\nand rational mind. For Apuleius himself, in speaking of gods and\nmen, said, \"You have two animal natures.\" And Platonists are wont\nto ascribe a rational mind to the gods. Two qualities remain, their\nliability to passion, and their eternity,--the first of which they\nhave in common with men, the second with the gods; so that they are\nneither wafted to the highest nor depressed to the lowest extreme,\nbut perfectly poised in their intermediate position. But then, this\nis the very circumstance which constitutes the eternal misery, or\nmiserable eternity, of the demons. For he who says that their soul\nis subject to passions would also have said that they are miserable,\nhad he not blushed for their worshippers. Moreover, as the world\nis governed, not by fortuitous haphazard, but, as the Platonists\nthemselves avow, by the providence of the supreme God, the misery of\nthe demons would not be eternal unless their wickedness were great.\n\nIf, then, the blessed are rightly styled _eudemons_, the demons\nintermediate between gods and men are not eudemons. What, then, is\nthe local position of those good demons, who, above men but beneath\nthe gods, afford assistance to the former, minister to the latter?\nFor if they are good and eternal, they are doubtless blessed. But\neternal blessedness destroys their intermediate character, giving\nthem a close resemblance to the gods, and widely separating them\nfrom men. And therefore the Platonists will in vain strive to show\nhow the good demons, if they are both immortal and blessed, can\njustly be said to hold a middle place between the gods, who are\nimmortal and blessed, and men, who are mortal and miserable. For if\nthey have both immortality and blessedness in common with the gods,\nand neither of these in common with men, who are both miserable and\nmortal, are they not rather remote from men and united with the gods,\nthan intermediate between them? They would be intermediate if they\nheld one of their qualities in common with the one party, and the\nother with the other, as man is a kind of mean between angels and\nbeasts,--the beast being an irrational and mortal animal, the angel\na rational and immortal one, while man, inferior to the angel and\nsuperior to the beast, and having in common with the one mortality,\nand with the other reason, is a rational and mortal animal. So,\nwhen we seek for an intermediate between the blessed immortals and\nmiserable mortals, we should find a being which is either mortal and\nblessed, or immortal and miserable.\n\n\n     14. _Whether men, though mortal, can enjoy true blessedness._\n\nIt is a great question among men, whether man can be mortal and\nblessed. Some, taking the humbler view of his condition, have denied\nthat he is capable of blessedness so long as he continues in this\nmortal life; others, again, have spurned this idea, and have been\nbold enough to maintain that, even though mortal, men may be blessed\nby attaining wisdom. But if this be the case, why are not these wise\nmen constituted mediators between miserable mortals and the blessed\nimmortals, since they have blessedness in common with the latter, and\nmortality in common with the former? Certainly, if they are blessed,\nthey envy no one (for what more miserable than envy?), but seek with\nall their might to help miserable mortals on to blessedness, so that\nafter death they may become immortal, and be associated with the\nblessed and immortal angels.\n\n\n   15. _Of the man Christ Jesus, the Mediator between God and men_.\n\nBut if, as is much more probable and credible, it must needs be that\nall men, so long as they are mortal, are also miserable, we must\nseek an intermediate who is not only man, but also God, that, by\nthe interposition of His blessed mortality, He may bring men out of\ntheir mortal misery to a blessed immortality. In this intermediate\ntwo things are requisite, that He become mortal, and that He do not\ncontinue mortal. He did become mortal, not rendering the divinity of\nthe Word infirm, but assuming the infirmity of flesh. Neither did\nHe continue mortal in the flesh, but raised it from the dead; for\nit is the very fruit of His mediation that those, for the sake of\nwhose redemption He became the Mediator, should not abide eternally\nin bodily death. Wherefore it became the Mediator between us and\nGod to have both a transient mortality and a permanent blessedness,\nthat by that which is transient He might be assimilated to mortals,\nand might translate them from mortality to that which is permanent.\nGood angels, therefore, cannot mediate between miserable mortals and\nblessed immortals, for they themselves also are both blessed and\nimmortal; but evil angels can mediate, because they are immortal like\nthe one party, miserable like the other. To these is opposed the good\nMediator, who, in opposition to their immortality and misery, has\nchosen to be mortal for a time, and has been able to continue blessed\nin eternity. It is thus He has destroyed, by the humility of His\ndeath and the benignity of His blessedness, those proud immortals and\nhurtful wretches, and has prevented them from seducing to misery by\ntheir boast of immortality those men whose hearts He has cleansed by\nfaith, and whom He has thus freed from their impure dominion.\n\nMan, then, mortal and miserable, and far removed from the immortal and\nthe blessed, what medium shall he choose by which he may be united to\nimmortality and blessedness? The immortality of the demons, which might\nhave some charm for man, is miserable; the mortality of Christ, which\nmight offend man, exists no longer. In the one there is the fear of an\neternal misery; in the other, death, which could not be eternal, can no\nlonger be feared, and blessedness, which is eternal, must be loved. For\nthe immortal and miserable mediator interposes himself to prevent us\nfrom passing to a blessed immortality, because that which hinders such\na passage, namely, misery, continues in him; but the mortal and blessed\nMediator interposed Himself, in order that, having passed through\nmortality, He might of mortals make immortals (showing His power to do\nthis in His own resurrection), and from being miserable to raise them\nto the blessed company from the number of whom He had Himself never\ndeparted. There is, then, a wicked mediator, who separates friends,\nand a good Mediator, who reconciles enemies. And those who separate\nare numerous, because the multitude of the blessed are blessed only\nby their participation in the one God; of which participation the\nevil angels being deprived, they are wretched, and interpose to hinder\nrather than to help to this blessedness, and by their very number\nprevent us from reaching that one beatific good, to obtain which we\nneed not many but one Mediator, the uncreated Word of God, by whom all\nthings were made, and in partaking of whom we are blessed. I do not\nsay that He is Mediator because He is the Word, for as the Word He\nis supremely blessed and supremely immortal, and therefore far from\nmiserable mortals; but He is Mediator as He is man, for by His humanity\nHe shows us that, in order to obtain that blessed and beatific good,\nwe need not seek other mediators to lead us through the successive\nsteps of this attainment, but that the blessed and beatific God,\nhaving Himself become a partaker of our humanity, has afforded us\nready access to the participation of His divinity. For in delivering\nus from our mortality and misery, He does not lead us to the immortal\nand blessed angels, so that we should become immortal and blessed\nby participating in their nature, but He leads us straight to that\nTrinity, by participating in which the angels themselves are blessed.\nTherefore, when He chose to be in the form of a servant, and lower than\nthe angels, that He might be our Mediator, He remained higher than the\nangels, in the form of God,--Himself at once the way of life on earth\nand life itself in heaven.\n\n\n  16. _Whether it is reasonable in the Platonists to determine that\n      the celestial gods decline contact with earthly things and\n      intercourse with men, who therefore require the intercession of\n      the demons._\n\nThat opinion, which the same Platonist avers that Plato uttered,\nis not true, \"that no god holds intercourse with men.\"[347] And\nthis, he says, is the chief evidence of their exaltation, that they\nare never contaminated by contact with men. He admits, therefore,\nthat the demons are contaminated; and it follows that they cannot\ncleanse those by whom they are themselves contaminated, and thus\nall alike become impure, the demons by associating with men, and\nmen by worshipping the demons. Or, if they say that the demons are\nnot contaminated by associating and dealing with men, then they are\nbetter than the gods, for the gods, were they to do so, would be\ncontaminated. For this, we are told, is the glory of the gods, that\nthey are so highly exalted that no human intercourse can sully them.\nHe affirms, indeed, that the supreme God, the Creator of all things,\nwhom we call the true God, is spoken of by Plato as the only God whom\nthe poverty of human speech fails even passably to describe; and\nthat even the wise, when their mental energy is as far as possible\ndelivered from the trammels of connection with the body, have only\nsuch gleams of insight into His nature as may be compared to a flash\nof lightning illumining the darkness. If, then, this supreme God, who\nis truly exalted above all things, does nevertheless visit the minds\nof the wise, when emancipated from the body, with an intelligible and\nineffable presence, though this be only occasional, and as it were\na swift flash of light athwart the darkness, why are the other gods\nso sublimely removed from all contact with men, as if they would be\npolluted by it? as if it were not a sufficient refutation of this\nto lift up our eyes to those heavenly bodies which give the earth\nits needful light. If the stars, though they, by his account, are\nvisible gods, are not contaminated when we look at them, neither are\nthe demons contaminated when men see them quite closely. But perhaps\nit is the human voice, and not the eye, which pollutes the gods;\nand therefore the demons are appointed to mediate and carry men's\nutterances to the gods, who keep themselves remote through fear of\npollution? What am I to say of the other senses? For by smell neither\nthe demons, who are present, nor the gods, though they were present\nand inhaling the exhalations of living men, would be polluted if\nthey are not contaminated with the effluvia of the carcases offered\nin sacrifice. As for taste, they are pressed by no necessity of\nrepairing bodily decay, so as to be reduced to ask food from men. And\ntouch is in their own power. For while it may seem that contact is so\ncalled, because the sense of touch is specially concerned in it, yet\nthe gods, if so minded, might mingle with men, so as to see and be\nseen, hear and be heard; and where is the need of touching? For men\nwould not dare to desire this, if they were favoured with the sight\nor conversation of gods or good demons; and if through excessive\ncuriosity they should desire it, how could they accomplish their wish\nwithout the consent of the god or demon, when they cannot touch so\nmuch as a sparrow unless it be caged?\n\nThere is, then, nothing to hinder the gods from mingling in a bodily\nform with men, from seeing and being seen, from speaking and hearing.\nAnd if the demons do thus mix with men, as I said, and are not\npolluted, while the gods, were they to do so, should be polluted,\nthen the demons are less liable to pollution than the gods. And if\neven the demons are contaminated, how can they help men to attain\nblessedness after death, if, so far from being able to cleanse them,\nand present them clean to the unpolluted gods, these mediators\nare themselves polluted? And if they cannot confer this benefit\non men, what good can their friendly mediation do? Or shall its\nresult be, not that men find entrance to the gods, but that men and\ndemons abide together in a state of pollution, and consequently of\nexclusion from blessedness? Unless, perhaps, some one may say that,\nlike sponges or things of that sort, the demons themselves, in the\nprocess of cleansing their friends, become themselves the filthier in\nproportion as the others become clean. But if this is the solution,\nthen the gods, who shun contact or intercourse with men for fear of\npollution, mix with demons who are far more polluted. Or perhaps\nthe gods, who cannot cleanse men without polluting themselves, can\nwithout pollution cleanse the demons who have been contaminated\nby human contact? Who can believe such follies, unless the demons\nhave practised their deceit upon him? If seeing and being seen is\ncontamination, and if the gods, whom Apuleius himself calls visible,\n\"the brilliant lights of the world,\"[348] and the other stars, are\nseen by men, are we to believe that the demons, who cannot be seen\nunless they please, are safer from contamination? Or if it is only\nthe seeing and not the being seen which contaminates, then they must\ndeny that these gods of theirs, these brilliant lights of the world,\nsee men when their rays beam upon the earth. Their rays are not\ncontaminated by lighting on all manner of pollution, and are we to\nsuppose that the gods would be contaminated if they mixed with men,\nand even if contact were needed in order to assist them? For there is\ncontact between the earth and the sun's or moon's rays, and yet this\ndoes not pollute the light.\n\n\n  17. _That to obtain the blessed life, which consists in partaking\n      of the supreme good, man needs such mediation as is furnished\n      not by a demon, but by Christ alone._\n\nI am considerably surprised that such learned men, men who pronounce\nall material and sensible things to be altogether inferior to those\nthat are spiritual and intelligible, should mention bodily contact\nin connection with the blessed life. Is that sentiment of Plotinus\nforgotten?--\"We must fly to our beloved fatherland. There is the\nFather, there our all. What fleet or flight shall convey us thither?\nOur way is, to become like God.\"[349] If, then, one is nearer to God\nthe liker he is to Him, there is no other distance from God than\nunlikeness to Him. And the soul of man is unlike that incorporeal and\nunchangeable and eternal essence, in proportion as it craves things\ntemporal and mutable. And as the things beneath, which are mortal and\nimpure, cannot hold intercourse with the immortal purity which is\nabove, a mediator is indeed needed to remove this difficulty; but not\na mediator who resembles the highest order of being by possessing an\nimmortal body, and the lowest by having a diseased soul, which makes\nhim rather grudge that we be healed than help our cure. We need a\nMediator who, being united to us here below by the mortality of His\nbody, should at the same time be able to afford us truly divine help\nin cleansing and liberating us by means of the immortal righteousness\nof His spirit, whereby He remained heavenly even while here upon\nearth. Far be it from the incontaminable God to fear pollution from\nthe man[350] He assumed, or from the men among whom He lived in the\nform of a man. For, though His incarnation showed us nothing else,\nthese two wholesome facts were enough, that true divinity cannot be\npolluted by flesh, and that demons are not to be considered better\nthan ourselves because they have not flesh.[351] This, then, as\nScripture says, is the \"Mediator between God and man, the man Christ\nJesus,\"[352] of whose divinity, whereby He is equal to the Father,\nand humanity, whereby He has become like us, this is not the place to\nspeak as fully as I could.\n\n\n   18. _That the deceitful demons, while promising to conduct men to\n God by their intercession, mean to turn them from the path of truth._\n\nAs to the demons, these false and deceitful mediators, who, though\ntheir uncleanness of spirit frequently reveals their misery and\nmalignity, yet, by virtue of the levity of their aerial bodies and\nthe nature of the places they inhabit, do contrive to turn us aside\nand hinder our spiritual progress; they do not help us towards God,\nbut rather prevent us from reaching Him. Since even in the bodily\nway, which is erroneous and misleading, and in which righteousness\ndoes not walk,--for we must rise to God not by bodily ascent, but\nby incorporeal or spiritual conformity to Him,--in this bodily way,\nI say, which the friends of the demons arrange according to the\nweight of the various elements, the aerial demons being set between\nthe ethereal gods and earthy men, they imagine the gods to have\nthis privilege, that by this local interval they are preserved from\nthe pollution of human contact. Thus they believe that the demons\nare contaminated by men rather than men cleansed by the demons,\nand that the gods themselves should be polluted unless their local\nsuperiority preserved them. Who is so wretched a creature as to\nexpect purification by a way in which men are contaminating, demons\ncontaminated, and gods contaminable? Who would not rather choose\nthat way whereby we escape the contamination of the demons, and\nare cleansed from pollution by the incontaminable God, so as to be\nassociated with the uncontaminated angels?\n\n\n    19. _That even among their own worshippers the name \"demon\" has\n                     never a good signification._\n\nBut as some of these demonolators, as I may call them, and among them\nLabeo, allege that those whom they call demons are by others called\nangels, I must, if I would not seem to dispute merely about words,\nsay something about the good angels. The Platonists do not deny their\nexistence, but prefer to call them good demons. But we, following\nScripture, according to which we are Christians, have learned that some\nof the angels are good, some bad, but never have we read in Scripture\nof good demons; but wherever this or any cognate term occurs, it is\napplied only to wicked spirits. And this usage has become so universal,\nthat, even among those who are called pagans, and who maintain that\ndemons as well as gods should be worshipped, there is scarcely a man,\nno matter how well read and learned, who would dare to say by way of\npraise to his slave, You have a demon, or who could doubt that the\nman to whom he said this would consider it a curse? Why, then, are we\nto subject ourselves to the necessity of explaining away what we have\nsaid when we have given offence by using the word demon, with which\nevery one, or almost every one, connects a bad meaning, while we can so\neasily evade this necessity by using the word angel?\n\n\n       20. _Of the kind of knowledge which puffs up the demons._\n\nHowever, the very origin of the name suggests something worthy of\nconsideration, if we compare it with the divine books. They are\ncalled demons from a Greek word meaning knowledge.[353] Now the\napostle, speaking with the Holy Spirit, says, \"Knowledge puffeth up,\nbut charity buildeth up.\"[354] And this can only be understood as\nmeaning that without charity knowledge does no good, but inflates a\nman or magnifies him with an empty windiness. The demons, then, have\nknowledge without charity, and are thereby so inflated or proud,\nthat they crave those divine honours and religious services which\nthey know to be due to the true God, and still, as far as they can,\nexact these from all over whom they have influence. Against this\npride of the demons, under which the human race was held subject\nas its merited punishment, there was exerted the mighty influence\nof the humility of God, who appeared in the form of a servant; but\nmen, resembling the demons in pride, but not in knowledge, and being\npuffed up with uncleanness, failed to recognise Him.\n\n\n   21. _To what extent the Lord was pleased to make Himself known to\n                             the demons._\n\nThe devils themselves knew this manifestation of God so well, that\nthey said to the Lord, though clothed with the infirmity of flesh,\n\"What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to\ndestroy us before the time?\"[355] From these words, it is clear that\nthey had great knowledge, and no charity. They feared His power to\npunish, and did not love His righteousness. He made known to them\nso much as He pleased, and He was pleased to make known so much as\nwas needful. But He made Himself known, not as to the holy angels,\nwho know Him as the Word of God, and rejoice in His eternity, which\nthey partake, but as was requisite to strike with terror the beings\nfrom whose tyranny He was going to free those who were predestined to\nHis kingdom and the glory of it, eternally true and truly eternal.\nHe made Himself known, therefore, to the demons, not by that which\nis life eternal, and the unchangeable light which illumines the\npious, whose souls are cleansed by the faith that is in Him, but by\nsome temporal effects of His power, and evidences of His mysterious\npresence, which were more easily discerned by the angelic senses\neven of wicked spirits than by human infirmity. But when He judged\nit advisable gradually to suppress these signs, and to retire into\ndeeper obscurity, the prince of the demons doubted whether He were\nthe Christ, and endeavoured to ascertain this by tempting Him, in so\nfar as He permitted Himself to be tempted, that He might adapt the\nmanhood He wore to be an example for our imitation. But after that\ntemptation, when, as Scripture says, He was ministered to[356] by the\nangels who are good and holy, and therefore objects of terror to the\nimpure spirits, He revealed more and more distinctly to the demons\nhow great He was, so that, even though the infirmity of His flesh\nmight seem contemptible, none dared to resist His authority.\n\n\n   22. _The difference between the knowledge of the holy angels and\n                         that of the demons._\n\nThe good angels, therefore, hold cheap all that knowledge of\nmaterial and transitory things which the demons are so proud of\npossessing,--not that they are ignorant of these things, but because\nthe love of God, whereby they are sanctified, is very dear to them,\nand because, in comparison of that not merely immaterial but also\nunchangeable and ineffable beauty, with the holy love of which they\nare inflamed, they despise all things which are beneath it, and all\nthat is not it, that they may with every good thing that is in them\nenjoy that good which is the source of their goodness. And therefore\nthey have a more certain knowledge even of those temporal and mutable\nthings, because they contemplate their principles and causes in the\nword of God, by which the world was made,--those causes by which one\nthing is approved, another rejected, and all arranged. But the demons\ndo not behold in the wisdom of God these eternal, and, as it were,\ncardinal causes of things temporal, but only foresee a larger part\nof the future than men do, by reason of their greater acquaintance\nwith the signs which are hidden from us. Sometimes, too, it is their\nown intentions they predict. And, finally, the demons are frequently,\nthe angels never, deceived. For it is one thing, by the aid of things\ntemporal and changeable, to conjecture the changes that may occur in\ntime, and to modify such things by one's own will and faculty,--and\nthis is to a certain extent permitted to the demons,--it is another\nthing to foresee the changes of times in the eternal and immutable\nlaws of God, which live in His wisdom, and to know the will of God,\nthe most infallible and powerful of all causes, by participating\nin His spirit; and this is granted to the holy angels by a just\ndiscretion. And thus they are not only eternal, but blessed And the\ngood wherein they are blessed is God, by whom they were created. For\nwithout end they enjoy the contemplation and participation of Him.\n\n\n  23. _That the name of gods is falsely given to the gods of the\n      Gentiles, though Scripture applies it both to the holy angels\n      and just men._\n\nIf the Platonists prefer to call these angels gods rather than\ndemons, and to reckon them with those whom Plato, their founder and\nmaster, maintains were created by the supreme God,[357] they are\nwelcome to do so, for I will not spend strength in fighting about\nwords. For if they say that these beings are immortal, and yet\ncreated by the supreme God, blessed but by cleaving to their Creator\nand not by their own power, they say what we say, whatever name they\ncall these beings by. And that this is the opinion either of all or\nthe best of the Platonists can be ascertained by their writings.\nAnd regarding the name itself, if they see fit to call such blessed\nand immortal creatures gods, this need not give rise to any serious\ndiscussion between us, since in our own Scriptures we read, \"The God\nof gods, the Lord hath spoken;\"[358] and again, \"Confess to the God\nof gods;\"[359] and again, \"He is a great King above all gods.\"[360]\nAnd where it is said, \"He is to be feared above all gods,\" the reason\nis forthwith added, for it follows, \"for all the gods of the nations\nare idols, but the Lord made the heavens.\"[361] He said, \"above all\ngods,\" but added, \"of the nations;\" that is to say, above all those\nwhom the nations count gods, in other words, demons. By them He is\nto be feared with that terror in which they cried to the Lord, \"Hast\nThou come to destroy us?\" But where it is said, \"the God of gods,\" it\ncannot be understood as the god of the demons; and far be it from us\nto say that \"great King above all gods\" means \"great King above all\ndemons.\" But the same Scripture also calls men who belong to God's\npeople \"gods:\" \"I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you children of\nthe Most High.\"[362] Accordingly, when God is styled God of gods,\nthis may be understood of these gods; and so, too, when He is styled\na great King above all gods.\n\nNevertheless, some one may say, if men are called gods because they\nbelong to God's people, whom He addresses by means of men and angels,\nare not the immortals, who already enjoy that felicity which men seek\nto attain by worshipping God, much more worthy of the title? And\nwhat shall we reply to this, if not that it is not without reason\nthat in holy Scripture men are more expressly styled gods than those\nimmortal and blessed spirits to whom we hope to be equal in the\nresurrection, because there was a fear that the weakness of unbelief,\nbeing overcome with the excellence of these beings, might presume to\nconstitute some of them a god? In the case of men this was a result\nthat need not be guarded against. Besides, it was right that the men\nbelonging to God's people should be more expressly called gods, to\nassure and certify them that He who is called God of gods is their\nGod; because, although those immortal and blessed spirits who dwell\nin the heavens are called gods, yet they are not called gods of gods,\nthat is to say, gods of the men who constitute God's people, and\nto whom it is said, \"I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you the\nchildren of the Most High.\" Hence the saying of the apostle, \"Though\nthere be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as\nthere be gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God,\nthe Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus\nChrist, by whom are all things, and we by Him.\"[363]\n\nWe need not, therefore, laboriously contend about the name, since\nthe reality is so obvious as to admit of no shadow of doubt. That\nwhich we say, that the angels who are sent to announce the will\nof God to men belong to the order of blessed immortals, does not\nsatisfy the Platonists, because they believe that this ministry is\ndischarged, not by those whom they call gods, in other words, not by\nblessed immortals, but by demons, whom they dare not affirm to be\nblessed, but only immortal, or if they do rank them among the blessed\nimmortals, yet only as good demons, and not as gods who dwell in\nthe heaven of heavens remote from all human contact. But, though it\nmay seem mere wrangling about a name, yet the name of demon is so\ndetestable that we cannot bear in any sense to apply it to the holy\nangels. Now, therefore, let us close this book in the assurance that,\nwhatever we call these immortal and blessed spirits, who yet are only\ncreatures, they do not act as mediators to introduce to everlasting\nfelicity miserable mortals, from whom they are severed by a twofold\ndistinction. And those others who are mediators, in so far as they\nhave immortality in common with their superiors, and misery in common\nwith their inferiors (for they are justly miserable in punishment\nof their wickedness), cannot bestow upon us, but rather grudge that\nwe should possess, the blessedness from which they themselves are\nexcluded. And so the friends of the demons have nothing considerable\nto allege why we should rather worship them as our helpers than avoid\nthem as traitors to our interests. As for those spirits who are\ngood, and who are therefore not only immortal but also blessed, and\nto whom they suppose we should give the title of gods, and offer\nworship and sacrifices for the sake of inheriting a future life, we\nshall, by God's help, endeavour in the following book to show that\nthese spirits, call them by what name, and ascribe to them what\nnature you will, desire that religious worship be paid to God alone,\nby whom they were created, and by whose communications of Himself to\nthem they are blessed.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[329] See Plutarch, on the Cessation of Oracles.\n\n[330] The _De Deo Socratis._\n\n[331] _De Fin._ iii. 20; _Tusc. Disp._ iii. 4.\n\n[332] The distinction between _bona_ and _commoda_ is thus given by\nSeneca (_Ep._ 87, _ad fin._): \"Commodum est quod plus usus est quam\nmolesti\u00e6; bonum sincerum debet esse et ab omni parte innoxium.\"\n\n[333] Book xix. ch. 1.\n\n[334] See _Diog. Laert._ ii. 71.\n\n[335] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, iv. 449.\n\n[336] Seneca, _De Clem._ ii. 4 and 5.\n\n[337] _Pro. Lig._ c. 12.\n\n[338] _De Oratore_, i. 11, 47.\n\n[339] _De Deo Soc._\n\n[340] _De Deo Soc._\n\n[341] _De Deo Soc._\n\n[342] _Cat. Conj._ i.\n\n[343] Plotinus died in 270 A.D. For his relation to Plato, see\nAugustine's _Contra Acad._ iii. 41.\n\n[344] _Ennead._ iv. 3. 12.\n\n[345] Apuleius, not Plotinus.\n\n[346] _De Deo Socratis._\n\n[347] Apuleius, _ibid._\n\n[348] Virgil, _Georg._ i. 5.\n\n[349] Augustine apparently quotes from memory from two passages of\nthe _Enneades_, I. vi. 8, and ii. 3.\n\n[350] Or, humanity.\n\n[351] Comp. _De Trin._ 13. 22.\n\n[352] 1 Tim. ii. 5.\n\n[353] \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd = \u03b4\u03b1\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, knowing; so Plato, _Cratylus_, 398. B.\n\n[354] 1 Cor. viii. 1.\n\n[355] Mark i. 24.\n\n[356] Matt. iv. 3-11.\n\n[357] _Tim\u00e6us._\n\n[358] Ps. l. 1.\n\n[359] Ps. cxxxvi. 2.\n\n[360] Ps. xcv. 3.\n\n[361] Ps. xcvi. 5, 6.\n\n[362] Ps. lxxxii. 6.\n\n[363] 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.\n\n\n\n\n                              BOOK TENTH.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  IN THIS BOOK AUGUSTINE TEACHES THAT THE GOOD ANGELS WISH GOD\n      ALONE, WHOM THEY THEMSELVES SERVE, TO RECEIVE THAT DIVINE\n      HONOUR WHICH IS RENDERED BY SACRIFICE, AND WHICH IS CALLED\n      \"LATREIA.\" HE THEN GOES ON TO DISPUTE AGAINST PORPHYRY ABOUT\n      THE PRINCIPLE AND WAY OF THE SOUL'S CLEANSING AND DELIVERANCE.\n\n\n  1. _That the Platonists themselves have determined that God alone\n      can confer happiness either on angels or men, but that it yet\n      remains a question whether those spirits whom they direct us\n      to worship, that we may obtain happiness, wish sacrifice to be\n      offered to themselves, or to the one God only._\n\nIt is the decided opinion of all who use their brains, that all men\ndesire to be happy. But who are happy, or how they become so, these\nare questions about which the weakness of human understanding stirs\nendless and angry controversies, in which philosophers have wasted\ntheir strength and expended their leisure. To adduce and discuss\ntheir various opinions would be tedious, and is unnecessary. The\nreader may remember what we said in the eighth book, while making a\nselection of the philosophers with whom we might discuss the question\nregarding the future life of happiness, whether we can reach it by\npaying divine honours to the one true God, the Creator of all gods,\nor by worshipping many gods, and he will not expect us to repeat\nhere the same argument, especially as, even if he has forgotten it,\nhe may refresh his memory by reperusal. For we made selection of\nthe Platonists, justly esteemed the noblest of the philosophers,\nbecause they had the wit to perceive that the human soul, immortal\nand rational, or intellectual, as it is, cannot be happy except\nby partaking of the light of that God by whom both itself and the\nworld were made; and also that the happy life which all men desire\ncannot be reached by any who does not cleave with a pure and holy\nlove to that one supreme good, the unchangeable God. But as even\nthese philosophers, whether accommodating to the folly and ignorance\nof the people, or, as the apostle says, \"becoming vain in their\nimaginations,\"[364] supposed or allowed others to suppose that many\ngods should be worshipped, so that some of them considered that\ndivine honour by worship and sacrifice should be rendered even to\nthe demons (an error I have already exploded), we must now, by God's\nhelp, ascertain what is thought about our religious worship and piety\nby those immortal and blessed spirits, who dwell in the heavenly\nplaces among dominations, principalities, powers, whom the Platonists\ncall gods, and some either good demons, or, like us, angels,--that\nis to say, to put it more plainly, whether the angels desire us to\noffer sacrifice and worship, and to consecrate our possessions and\nourselves, to them, or only to God, theirs and ours.\n\nFor this is the worship which is due to the Divinity, or, to\nspeak more accurately, to the Deity; and, to express this worship\nin a single word, as there does not occur to me any Latin term\nsufficiently exact, I shall avail myself, whenever necessary, of a\nGreek word. \u039b\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered\nby the word service. But that service which is due to men, and in\nreference to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject\nto their own masters,[365] is usually designated by another word\nin Greek,[366] whereas the service which is paid to God alone by\nworship, is always, or almost always, called \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 in the usage\nof those who wrote from the divine oracles. This cannot so well be\ncalled simply \"cultus,\" for in that case it would not seem to be due\nexclusively to God; for the same word is applied to the respect we\npay either to the memory or the living presence of men. From it, too,\nwe derive the words agriculture, colonist, and others.[367] And the\nheathen call their gods \"c\u0153licol\u00e6,\" not because they worship heaven,\nbut because they dwell in it, and as it were colonize it,--not in\nthe sense in which we call those colonists who are attached to their\nnative soil to cultivate it under the rule of the owners, but in the\nsense in which the great master of the Latin language says, \"There\nwas an ancient city inhabited by Tyrian colonists.\"[368] He called\nthem colonists, not because they cultivated the soil, but because\nthey inhabited the city. So, too, cities that have hived off from\nlarger cities are called colonies. Consequently, while it is quite\ntrue that, using the word in a special sense, \"cult\" can be rendered\nto none but God, yet, as the word is applied to other things besides,\nthe cult due to God cannot in Latin be expressed by this word alone.\n\nThe word \"religion\" might seem to express more definitely the worship\ndue to God alone, and therefore Latin translators have used this word\nto represent \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1; yet, as not only the uneducated, but also\nthe best instructed, use the word religion to express human ties,\nand relationships, and affinities, it would inevitably introduce\nambiguity to use this word in discussing the worship of God, unable\nas we are to say that religion is nothing else than the worship\nof God, without contradicting the common usage which applies this\nword to the observance of social relationships. \"Piety,\" again, or,\nas the Greeks say, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, is commonly understood as the proper\ndesignation of the worship of God. Yet this word also is used of\ndutifulness to parents. The common people, too, use it of works\nof charity, which, I suppose, arises from the circumstance that\nGod enjoins the performance of such works, and declares that He\nis pleased with them instead of, or in preference to sacrifices.\nFrom this usage it has also come to pass that God Himself is called\npious,[369] in which sense the Greeks never use \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, though\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 is applied to works of charity by their common people\nalso. In some passages of Scripture, therefore, they have sought to\npreserve the distinction by using not \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, the more general\nword, but \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, which literally denotes the worship of God.\nWe, on the other hand, cannot express either of these ideas by one\nword. This worship, then, which in Greek is called \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, and in\nLatin \"servitus\" [service], but the service due to God only; this\nworship, which in Greek is called \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, and in Latin \"religio,\"\nbut the religion by which we are bound to God only; this worship,\nwhich they call \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, but which we cannot express in one word,\nbut call it the worship of God,--this, we say, belongs only to that\nGod who is the true God, and who makes His worshippers gods.[370] And\ntherefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven\nbe, if they do not love us, and wish us to be blessed, then we ought\nnot to worship them; and if they do love us and desire our happiness,\nthey cannot wish us to be made happy by any other means than they\nthemselves have enjoyed,--for how could they wish our blessedness to\nflow from one source, theirs from another?\n\n\n   2. _The opinion of Plotinus the Platonist regarding enlightenment\n                             from above._\n\nBut with these more estimable philosophers we have no dispute in\nthis matter. For they perceived, and in various forms abundantly\nexpressed in their writings, that these spirits have the same source\nof happiness as ourselves,--a certain intelligible light, which is\ntheir God, and is different from themselves, and illumines them that\nthey may be penetrated with light, and enjoy perfect happiness in the\nparticipation of God. Plotinus, commenting on Plato, repeatedly and\nstrongly asserts that not even the soul which they believe to be the\nsoul of the world, derives its blessedness from any other source than\nwe do, viz. from that Light which is distinct from it and created\nit, and by whose intelligible illumination it enjoys light in things\nintelligible. He also compares those spiritual things to the vast and\nconspicuous heavenly bodies, as if God were the sun, and the soul the\nmoon; for they suppose that the moon derives its light from the sun.\nThat great Platonist, therefore, says that the rational soul, or rather\nthe intellectual soul,--in which class he comprehends the souls of the\nblessed immortals who inhabit heaven,--has no nature superior to it\nsave God, the Creator of the world and the soul itself, and that these\nheavenly spirits derive their blessed life, and the light of truth,\nfrom the same source as ourselves, agreeing with the gospel where we\nread, \"There was a man sent from God whose name was John; the same came\nfor a witness to bear witness of that Light, that through Him all\nmight believe. He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of\nthe Light. That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh\ninto the world;\"[371]--a distinction which sufficiently proves that the\nrational or intellectual soul such as John had cannot be its own light,\nbut needs to receive illumination from another, the true Light. This\nJohn himself avows when he delivers his witness: \"We have all received\nof His fulness.\"[372]\n\n\n  3. _That the Platonists, though knowing something of the Creator\n      of the universe, have misunderstood the true worship of God, by\n      giving divine honour to angels, good or bad._\n\nThis being so, if the Platonists, or those who think with them,\nknowing God, glorified Him as God and gave thanks, if they did\nnot become vain in their own thoughts, if they did not originate\nor yield to the popular errors, they would certainly acknowledge\nthat neither could the blessed immortals retain, nor we miserable\nmortals reach, a happy condition without worshipping the one God\nof gods, who is both theirs and ours. To Him we owe the service\nwhich is called in Greek \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, whether we render it outwardly or\ninwardly; for we are all His temple, each of us severally and all\nof us together, because He condescends to inhabit each individually\nand the whole harmonious body, being no greater in all than in\neach, since He is neither expanded nor divided. Our heart when it\nrises to Him is His altar; the priest who intercedes for us is His\nOnly-begotten; we sacrifice to Him bleeding victims when we contend\nfor His truth even unto blood; to Him we offer the sweetest incense\nwhen we come before Him burning with holy and pious love; to Him\nwe devote and surrender ourselves and His gifts in us; to Him, by\nsolemn feasts and on appointed days, we consecrate the memory of\nHis benefits, lest through the lapse of time ungrateful oblivion\nshould steal upon us; to Him we offer on the altar of our heart the\nsacrifice of humility and praise, kindled by the fire of burning\nlove. It is that we may see Him, so far as He can be seen; it is\nthat we may cleave to Him, that we are cleansed from all stain of\nsins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. For He is\nthe fountain of our happiness, He the end of all our desires. Being\nattached to Him, or rather let me say, re-attached,--for we had\ndetached ourselves and lost hold of Him,--being, I say, re-attached\nto Him,[373] we tend towards Him by love, that we may rest in Him,\nand find our blessedness by attaining that end. For our good, about\nwhich philosophers have so keenly contended, is nothing else than to\nbe united to God. It is, if I may say so, by spiritually embracing\nHim that the intellectual soul is filled and impregnated with true\nvirtues. We are enjoined to love this good with all our heart,\nwith all our soul, with all our strength. To this good we ought to\nbe led by those who love us, and to lead those we love. Thus are\nfulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the\nprophets: \"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and\nwith all thy mind, and with all thy soul;\" and \"Thou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself.\"[374] For, that man might be intelligent in\nhis self-love, there was appointed for him an end to which he might\nrefer all his actions, that he might be blessed. For he who loves\nhimself wishes nothing else than this. And the end set before him is\n\"to draw near to God.\"[375] And so, when one who has this intelligent\nself-love is commanded to love his neighbour as himself, what else\nis enjoined than that he shall do all in his power to commend to him\nthe love of God? This is the worship of God, this is true religion,\nthis right piety, this the service due to God only. If any immortal\npower, then, no matter with what virtue endowed, loves us as himself,\nhe must desire that we find our happiness by submitting ourselves to\nHim, in submission to whom he himself finds happiness. If he does not\nworship God, he is wretched, because deprived of God; if he worships\nGod, he cannot wish to be worshipped in God's stead. On the contrary,\nthese higher powers acquiesce heartily in the divine sentence in\nwhich it is written, \"He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the\nLord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.\"[376]\n\n\n           4. _That sacrifice is due to the true God only._\n\nBut, putting aside for the present the other religious services\nwith which God is worshipped, certainly no man would dare to say\nthat sacrifice is due to any but God. Many parts, indeed, of divine\nworship are unduly used in showing honour to men, whether through an\nexcessive humility or pernicious flattery; yet, while this is done,\nthose persons who are thus worshipped and venerated, or even adored,\nare reckoned no more than human; and who ever thought of sacrificing\nsave to one whom he knew, supposed, or feigned to be a god? And how\nancient a part of God's worship sacrifice is, those two brothers,\nCain and Abel, sufficiently show, of whom God rejected the elder's\nsacrifice, and looked favourably on the younger's.\n\n\n  5. _Of the sacrifices which God does not require, but wished to\n      be observed for the exhibition of those things which He does\n      require._\n\nAnd who is so foolish as to suppose that the things offered to God\nare needed by Him for some uses of His own? Divine Scripture in many\nplaces explodes this idea. Not to be wearisome, suffice it to quote\nthis brief saying from a psalm: \"I have said to the Lord, Thou art my\nGod: for Thou needest not my goodness.\"[377] We must believe, then,\nthat God has no need, not only of cattle, or any other earthly and\nmaterial thing, but even of man's righteousness, and that whatever\nright worship is paid to God profits not Him, but man. For no man\nwould say he did a benefit to a fountain by drinking, or to the\nlight by seeing. And the fact that the ancient church offered animal\nsacrifices, which the people of God now-a-days reads of without\nimitating, proves nothing else than this, that those sacrifices\nsignified the things which we do for the purpose of drawing near\nto God, and inducing our neighbour to do the same. A sacrifice,\ntherefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible\nsacrifice. Hence that penitent in the psalm, or it may be the\nPsalmist himself, entreating God to be merciful to his sins, says,\n\"If Thou desiredst sacrifice, I would give it: Thou delightest not\nin whole burnt-offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken heart: a\nheart contrite and humble God will not despise.\"[378] Observe how, in\nthe very words in which he is expressing God's refusal of sacrifice,\nhe shows that God requires sacrifice. He does not desire the\nsacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but He desires the sacrifice of a\ncontrite heart. Thus, that sacrifice which he says God does not wish,\nis the symbol of the sacrifice which God does wish. God does not wish\nsacrifices in the sense in which foolish people think He wishes them,\nviz. to gratify His own pleasure. For if He had not wished that the\nsacrifices He requires, as, _e.g._, a heart contrite and humbled by\npenitent sorrow, should be symbolized by those sacrifices which He\nwas thought to desire because pleasant to Himself, the old law would\nnever have enjoined their presentation; and they were destined to\nbe merged when the fit opportunity arrived, in order that men might\nnot suppose that the sacrifices themselves, rather than the things\nsymbolized by them, were pleasing to God or acceptable in us. Hence,\nin another passage from another psalm, he says, \"If I were hungry, I\nwould not tell thee; for the world is mine and the fulness thereof.\nWill I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?\"[379]\nas if He should say, Supposing such things were necessary to me, I\nwould never ask thee for what I have in my own hand. Then he goes\non to mention what these signify: \"Offer unto God the sacrifice of\npraise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in\nthe day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify\nme.\"[380] So in another prophet: \"Wherewith shall I come before the\nLord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him\nwith burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be\npleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of\noil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of\nmy body for the sin of my soul? Hath He showed thee, O man, what is\ngood; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and\nto love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?\"[381] In the words of\nthis prophet, these two things are distinguished and set forth with\nsufficient explicitness, that God does not require these sacrifices\nfor their own sakes, and that He does require the sacrifices which\nthey symbolize. In the epistle entitled \"To the Hebrews\" it is said,\n\"To do good and to communicate, forget not: for with such sacrifices\nGod is well pleased.\"[382] And so, when it is written, \"I desire\nmercy rather than sacrifice,\"[383] nothing else is meant than that\none sacrifice is preferred to another; for that which in common\nspeech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the true sacrifice.\nNow mercy is the true sacrifice, and therefore it is said, as I have\njust quoted, \"with such sacrifices God is well pleased.\" All the\ndivine ordinances, therefore, which we read concerning the sacrifices\nin the service of the tabernacle or the temple, we are to refer to\nthe love of God and our neighbour. For \"on these two commandments,\"\nas it is written, \"hang all the law and the prophets.\"[384]\n\n\n                6. _Of the true and perfect sacrifice._\n\nThus a true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may be\nunited to God in holy fellowship, and which has a reference to that\nsupreme good and end in which alone we can be truly blessed.[385]\nAnd therefore even the mercy we show to men, if it is not shown for\nGod's sake, is not a sacrifice. For, though made or offered by man,\nsacrifice is a divine thing, as those who called it _sacrifice_[386]\nmeant to indicate. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God,\nand vowed to God, is a sacrifice in so far as he dies to the world\nthat he may live to God. For this is a part of that mercy which each\nman shows to himself; as it is written, \"Have mercy on thy soul by\npleasing God.\"[387] Our body, too, is a sacrifice when we chasten\nit by temperance, if we do so as we ought, for God's sake, that we\nmay not yield our members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,\nbut instruments of righteousness unto God.[388] Exhorting to this\nsacrifice, the apostle says, \"I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by\nthe mercy of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,\nholy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.\"[389] If,\nthen, the body, which, being inferior, the soul uses as a servant or\ninstrument, is a sacrifice when it is used rightly, and with reference\nto God, how much more does the soul itself become a sacrifice when\nit offers itself to God, in order that, being inflamed by the fire of\nHis love, it may receive of His beauty and become pleasing to Him,\nlosing the shape of earthly desire, and being remoulded in the image\nof permanent loveliness? And this, indeed, the apostle subjoins,\nsaying, \"And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed\nin the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good,\nand acceptable, and perfect will of God.\"[390] Since, therefore, true\nsacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, done with a\nreference to God, and since works of mercy have no other object than\nthe relief of distress or the conferring of happiness, and since there\nis no happiness apart from that good of which it is said, \"It is good\nfor me to be very near to God,\"[391] it follows that the whole redeemed\ncity, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints, is\noffered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest, who\noffered Himself to God in His passion for us, that we might be members\nof this glorious head, according to the form of a servant. For it was\nthis form He offered, in this He was offered, because it is according\nto it He is Mediator, in this He is our Priest, in this the Sacrifice.\nAccordingly, when the apostle had exhorted us to present our bodies\na living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service,\nand not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed in the\nrenewing of our mind, that we might prove what is that good, and\nacceptable, and perfect will of God, that is to say, the true sacrifice\nof ourselves, he says, \"For I say, through the grace of God which is\ngiven unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself\nmore highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according\nas God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For, as we have\nmany members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so\nwe, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of\nanother, having gifts differing according to the grace that is given\nto us.\"[392] This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are\none body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church\ncontinually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the\nfaithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the\noffering she makes to God.\n\n\n   7. _Of the love of the holy angels, which prompts them to desire\n        that we worship the one true God, and not themselves._\n\nIt is very right that these blessed and immortal spirits, who\ninhabit celestial dwellings, and rejoice in the communications\nof their Creator's fulness, firm in His eternity, assured in His\ntruth, holy by His grace, since they compassionately and tenderly\nregard us miserable mortals, and wish us to become immortal and\nhappy, do not desire us to sacrifice to themselves, but to Him whose\nsacrifice they know themselves to be in common with us. For we and\nthey together are the one city of God, to which it is said in the\npsalm, \"Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God;\"[393] the\nhuman part sojourning here below, the angelic aiding from above. For\nfrom that heavenly city, in which God's will is the intelligible\nand unchangeable law, from that heavenly council-chamber,--for\nthey sit in counsel regarding us,--that holy Scripture, descended\nto us by the ministry of angels, in which it is written, \"He that\nsacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be\nutterly destroyed,\"[394]--this Scripture, this law, these precepts,\nhave been confirmed by such miracles, that it is sufficiently evident\nto whom these immortal and blessed spirits, who desire us to be like\nthemselves, wish us to sacrifice.\n\n\n  8. _Of the miracles which God has condescended to adhibit, through\n      the ministry of angels, to His promises for the confirmation of\n      the faith of the godly._\n\nI should seem tedious were I to recount all the ancient miracles,\nwhich were wrought in attestation of God's promises which He made\nto Abraham thousands of years ago, that in his seed all the nations\nof the earth should be blessed.[395] For who can but marvel that\nAbraham's barren wife should have given birth to a son at an age\nwhen not even a prolific woman could bear children; or, again, that\nwhen Abraham sacrificed, a flame from heaven should have run between\nthe divided parts;[396] or that the angels in human form, whom he\nhad hospitably entertained, and who had renewed God's promise of\noffspring, should also have predicted the destruction of Sodom by\nfire from heaven;[397] and that his nephew Lot should have been\nrescued from Sodom by the angels as the fire was just descending,\nwhile his wife, who looked back as she went, and was immediately\nturned into salt, stood as a sacred beacon warning us that no one\nwho is being saved should long for what he is leaving? How striking\nalso were the wonders done by Moses to rescue God's people from the\nyoke of slavery in Egypt, when the magi of the Pharaoh, that is, the\nking of Egypt, who tyrannized over this people, were suffered to do\nsome wonderful things that they might be vanquished all the more\nsignally! They did these things by the magical arts and incantations\nto which the evil spirits or demons are addicted; while Moses, having\nas much greater power as he had right on his side, and having the\naid of angels, easily conquered them in the name of the Lord who\nmade heaven and earth. And, in fact, the magicians failed at the\nthird plague; whereas Moses, dealing out the miracles delegated to\nhim, brought ten plagues upon the land, so that the hard hearts\nof Pharaoh and the Egyptians yielded, and the people were let go.\nBut, quickly repenting, and essaying to overtake the departing\nHebrews, who had crossed the sea on dry ground, they were covered\nand overwhelmed in the returning waters. What shall I say of those\nfrequent and stupendous exhibitions of divine power, while the people\nwere conducted through the wilderness?--of the waters which could not\nbe drunk, but lost their bitterness, and quenched the thirsty, when\nat God's command a piece of wood was cast into them? of the manna\nthat descended from heaven to appease their hunger, and which begat\nworms and putrefied when any one collected more than the appointed\nquantity, and yet, though double was gathered on the day before the\nSabbath (it not being lawful to gather it on that day), remained\nfresh? of the birds which filled the camp, and turned appetite into\nsatiety when they longed for flesh, which it seemed impossible to\nsupply to so vast a population? of the enemies who met them, and\nopposed their passage with arms, and were defeated without the loss\nof a single Hebrew, when Moses prayed with his hands extended in\nthe form of a cross? of the seditious persons who arose among God's\npeople, and separated themselves from the divinely-ordered community,\nand were swallowed up alive by the earth, a visible token of an\ninvisible punishment? of the rock struck with the rod, and pouring\nout waters more than enough for all the host? of the deadly serpents'\nbites, sent in just punishment of sin, but healed by looking at the\nlifted brazen serpent, so that not only were the tormented people\nhealed, but a symbol of the crucifixion of death set before them in\nthis destruction of death by death? It was this serpent which was\npreserved in memory of this event, and was afterwards worshipped by\nthe mistaken people as an idol, and was destroyed by the pious and\nGod-fearing king Hezekiah, much to his credit.\n\n\n   9. _Of the illicit arts connected with demonolatry, and of which\n       the Platonist Porphyry adopts some, and discards others._\n\nThese miracles, and many others of the same nature, which it were\ntedious to mention, were wrought for the purpose of commending\nthe worship of the one true God, and prohibiting the worship of a\nmultitude of false gods. Moreover, they were wrought by simple faith\nand godly confidence, not by the incantations and charms composed\nunder the influence of a criminal tampering with the unseen world, of\nan art which they call either magic, or by the more abominable title\nnecromancy,[398] or the more honourable designation theurgy; for they\nwish to discriminate between those whom the people call magicians,\nwho practise necromancy, and are addicted to illicit arts and\ncondemned, and those others who seem to them to be worthy of praise\nfor their practice of theurgy,--the truth, however, being that both\nclasses are the slaves of the deceitful rites of the demons whom they\ninvoke under the names of angels.\n\nFor even Porphyry promises some kind of purgation of the soul by the\nhelp of theurgy, though he does so with some hesitation and shame,\nand denies that this art can secure to any one a return to God; so\nthat you can detect his opinion vacillating between the profession\nof philosophy and an art which he feels to be presumptuous and\nsacrilegious. For at one time he warns us to avoid it as deceitful,\nand prohibited by law, and dangerous to those who practise it; then\nagain, as if in deference to its advocates, he declares it useful for\ncleansing one part of the soul, not, indeed, the intellectual part,\nby which the truth of things intelligible, which have no sensible\nimages, is recognised, but the spiritual part, which takes cognizance\nof the images of things material. This part, he says, is prepared and\nfitted for intercourse with spirits and angels, and for the vision of\nthe gods, by the help of certain theurgic consecrations, or, as they\ncall them, mysteries. He acknowledges, however, that these theurgic\nmysteries impart to the intellectual soul no such purity as fits it\nto see its God, and recognise the things that truly exist. And from\nthis acknowledgment we may infer what kind of gods these are, and\nwhat kind of vision of them is imparted by theurgic consecrations,\nif by it one cannot see the things which truly exist. He says,\nfurther, that the rational, or, as he prefers calling it, the\nintellectual soul, can pass into the heavens without the spiritual\npart being cleansed by theurgic art, and that this art cannot so\npurify the spiritual part as to give it entrance to immortality\nand eternity. And therefore, although he distinguishes angels from\ndemons, asserting that the habitation of the latter is in the air,\nwhile the former dwell in the ether and empyrean, and although he\nadvises us to cultivate the friendship of some demon, who may be able\nafter our death to assist us, and elevate us at least a little above\nthe earth,--for he owns that it is by another way we must reach the\nheavenly society of the angels,--he at the same time distinctly warns\nus to avoid the society of demons, saying that the soul, expiating\nits sin after death, execrates the worship of demons by whom it\nwas entangled. And of theurgy itself, though he recommends it as\nreconciling angels and demons, he cannot deny that it treats with\npowers which either themselves envy the soul its purity, or serve\nthe arts of those who do envy it. He complains of this through the\nmouth of some Chald\u00e6an or other: \"A good man in Chald\u00e6a complains,\"\nhe says, \"that his most strenuous efforts to cleanse his soul were\nfrustrated, because another man, who had influence in these matters,\nand who envied him purity, had prayed to the powers, and bound them\nby his conjuring not to listen to his request. Therefore,\" adds\nPorphyry, \"what the one man bound, the other could not loose.\" And\nfrom this he concludes that theurgy is a craft which accomplishes\nnot only good but evil among gods and men; and that the gods also\nhave passions, and are perturbed and agitated by the emotions which\nApuleius attributed to demons and men, but from which he preserved\nthe gods by that sublimity of residence, which, in common with Plato,\nhe accorded to them.\n\n\n  10. _Concerning theurgy, which promises a delusive purification of\n                the soul by the invocation of demons._\n\nBut here we have another and a much more learned Platonist than\nApuleius, Porphyry, to wit, asserting that, by I know not what theurgy,\neven the gods themselves are subjected to passions and perturbations;\nfor by adjurations they were so bound and terrified that they could not\nconfer purity of soul,--were so terrified by him who imposed on them a\nwicked command, that they could not by the same theurgy be freed from\nthat terror, and fulfil the righteous behest of him who prayed to them,\nor do the good he sought. Who does not see that all these things are\nfictions of deceiving demons, unless he be a wretched slave of theirs,\nand an alien from the grace of the true Liberator? For if the Chald\u00e6an\nhad been dealing with good gods, certainly a well-disposed man, who\nsought to purify his own soul, would have had more influence with them\nthan an evil-disposed man seeking to hinder him. Or, if the gods were\njust, and considered the man unworthy of the purification he sought, at\nall events they should not have been terrified by an envious person,\nnor hindered, as Porphyry avows, by the fear of a stronger deity, but\nshould have simply denied the boon on their own free judgment. And it\nis surprising that that well-disposed Chald\u00e6an, who desired to purify\nhis soul by theurgical rites, found no superior deity who could either\nterrify the frightened gods still more, and force them to confer the\nboon, or compose their fears, and so enable them to do good without\ncompulsion,--even supposing that the good theurgist had no rites by\nwhich he himself might purge away the taint of fear from the gods whom\nhe invoked for the purification of his own soul. And why is it that\nthere is a god who has power to terrify the inferior gods, and none who\nhas power to free them from fear? Is there found a god who listens to\nthe envious man, and frightens the gods from doing good? and is there\nnot found a god who listens to the well-disposed man, and removes the\nfear of the gods that they may do him good? O excellent theurgy! O\nadmirable purification of the soul!--a theurgy in which the violence\nof an impure envy has more influence than the entreaty of purity and\nholiness. Rather let us abominate and avoid the deceit of such wicked\nspirits, and listen to sound doctrine. As to those who perform these\nfilthy cleansings by sacrilegious rites, and see in their initiated\nstate (as he further tells us, though we may question this vision)\ncertain wonderfully lovely appearances of angels or gods, this is what\nthe apostle refers to when he speaks of \"Satan transforming himself\ninto an angel of light.\"[399] For these are the delusive appearances\nof that spirit who longs to entangle wretched souls in the deceptive\nworship of many and false gods, and to turn them aside from the true\nworship of the true God, by whom alone they are cleansed and healed,\nand who, as was said of Proteus, \"turns himself into all shapes,\"[400]\nequally hurtful, whether he assaults us as an enemy, or assumes the\ndisguise of a friend.\n\n\n       11. _Of Porphyry's epistle to Anebo, in which he asks for\n           information about the differences among demons._\n\nIt was a better tone which Porphyry adopted in his letter to Anebo\nthe Egyptian, in which, assuming the character of an inquirer\nconsulting him, he unmasks and explodes these sacrilegious arts. In\nthat letter, indeed, he repudiates all demons, whom he maintains to\nbe so foolish as to be attracted by the sacrificial vapours, and\ntherefore residing not in the ether, but in the air beneath the\nmoon, and indeed in the moon itself. Yet he has not the boldness\nto attribute to all the demons all the deceptions and malicious\nand foolish practices which justly move his indignation. For,\nthough he acknowledges that as a race demons are foolish, he so\nfar accommodates himself to popular ideas as to call some of them\nbenignant demons. He expresses surprise that sacrifices not only\nincline the gods, but also compel and force them to do what men wish;\nand he is at a loss to understand how the sun and moon, and other\nvisible celestial bodies,--for bodies he does not doubt that they\nare,--are considered gods, if the gods are distinguished from the\ndemons by their incorporeality; also, if they are gods, how some are\ncalled beneficent and others hurtful, and how they, being corporeal,\nare numbered with the gods, who are incorporeal. He inquires further,\nand still as one in doubt, whether diviners and wonderworkers are\nmen of unusually powerful souls, or whether the power to do these\nthings is communicated by spirits from without. He inclines to the\nlatter opinion, on the ground that it is by the use of stones and\nherbs that they lay spells on people, and open closed doors, and do\nsimilar wonders. And on this account, he says, some suppose that\nthere is a race of beings whose property it is to listen to men,--a\nrace deceitful, full of contrivances, capable of assuming all forms,\nsimulating gods, demons, and dead men,--and that it is this race\nwhich brings about all these things which have the appearance of\ngood or evil, but that what is really good they never help us in,\nand are indeed unacquainted with, for they make wickedness easy, but\nthrow obstacles in the path of those who eagerly follow virtue; and\nthat they are filled with pride and rashness, delight in sacrificial\nodours, are taken with flattery. These and the other characteristics\nof this race of deceitful and malicious spirits, who come into the\nsouls of men and delude their senses, both in sleep and waking, he\ndescribes not as things of which he is himself convinced, but only\nwith so much suspicion and doubt as to cause him to speak of them\nas commonly received opinions. We should sympathize with this great\nphilosopher in the difficulty he experienced in acquainting himself\nwith and confidently assailing the whole fraternity of devils, which\nany Christian old woman would unhesitatingly describe and most\nunreservedly detest. Perhaps, however, he shrank from offending\nAnebo, to whom he was writing, himself the most eminent patron of\nthese mysteries, or the others who marvelled at these magical feats\nas divine works, and closely allied to the worship of the gods.\n\nHowever, he pursues this subject, and, still in the character of\nan inquirer, mentions some things which no sober judgment could\nattribute to any but malicious and deceitful powers. He asks why,\nafter the better class of spirits have been invoked, the worse\nshould be commanded to perform the wicked desires of men; why they\ndo not hear a man who has just left a woman's embrace, while they\nthemselves make no scruple of tempting men to incest and adultery;\nwhy their priests are commanded to abstain from animal food for fear\nof being polluted by the corporeal exhalations, while they themselves\nare attracted by the fumes of sacrifices and other exhalations;\nwhy the initiated are forbidden to touch a dead body, while their\nmysteries are celebrated almost entirely by means of dead bodies;\nwhy it is that a man addicted to any vice should utter threats, not\nto a demon or to the soul of a dead man, but to the sun and moon,\nor some of the heavenly bodies, which he intimidates by imaginary\nterrors, that he may wring from them a real boon,--for he threatens\nthat he will demolish the sky, and such like impossibilities,--that\nthose gods, being alarmed, like silly children, with imaginary and\nabsurd threats, may do what they are ordered. Porphyry further\nrelates that a man Ch\u00e6remon, profoundly versed in these sacred or\nrather sacrilegious mysteries, had written that the famous Egyptian\nmysteries of Isis and her husband Osiris had very great influence\nwith the gods to compel them to do what they were ordered, when he\nwho used the spells threatened to divulge or do away with these\nmysteries, and cried with a threatening voice that he would scatter\nthe members of Osiris if they neglected his orders. Not without\nreason is Porphyry surprised that a man should utter such wild and\nempty threats against the gods,--not against gods of no account,\nbut against the heavenly gods, and those that shine with sidereal\nlight,--and that these threats should be effectual to constrain them\nwith resistless power, and alarm them so that they fulfil his wishes.\nNot without reason does he, in the character of an inquirer into the\nreasons of these surprising things, give it to be understood that\nthey are done by that race of spirits which he previously described\nas if quoting other people's opinions,--spirits who deceive not, as\nhe said, by nature, but by their own corruption, and who simulate\ngods and dead men, but not, as he said, demons, for demons they\nreally are. As to his idea that by means of herbs, and stones,\nand animals, and certain incantations and noises, and drawings,\nsometimes fanciful, and sometimes copied from the motions of the\nheavenly bodies, men create upon earth powers capable of bringing\nabout various results, all that is only the mystification which these\ndemons practise on those who are subject to them, for the sake of\nfurnishing themselves with merriment at the expense of their dupes.\nEither, then, Porphyry was sincere in his doubts and inquiries, and\nmentioned these things to demonstrate and put beyond question that\nthey were the work, not of powers which aid us in obtaining life,\nbut of deceitful demons; or, to take a more favourable view of the\nphilosopher, he adopted this method with the Egyptian who was wedded\nto these errors, and was proud of them, that he might not offend him\nby assuming the attitude of a teacher, nor discompose his mind by the\naltercation of a professed assailant, but, by assuming the character\nof an inquirer, and the humble attitude of one who was anxious to\nlearn, might turn his attention to these matters, and show how worthy\nthey are to be despised and relinquished. Towards the conclusion\nof his letter, he requests Anebo to inform him what the Egyptian\nwisdom indicates as the way to blessedness. But as to those who hold\nintercourse with the gods, and pester them only for the sake of\nfinding a runaway slave, or acquiring property, or making a bargain\nof a marriage, or such things, he declares that their pretensions to\nwisdom are vain. He adds that these same gods, even granting that\non other points their utterances were true, were yet so ill-advised\nand unsatisfactory in their disclosures about blessedness, that they\ncannot be either gods or good demons, but are either that spirit who\nis called the deceiver, or mere fictions of the imagination.\n\n\n   12. _Of the miracles wrought by the true God through the ministry\n                         of the holy angels._\n\nSince by means of these arts wonders are done which quite surpass human\npower, what choice have we but to believe that these predictions and\noperations, which seem to be miraculous and divine, and which at the\nsame time form no part of the worship of the one God, in adherence to\nwhom, as the Platonists themselves abundantly testify, all blessedness\nconsists, are the pastime of wicked spirits, who thus seek to seduce\nand hinder the truly godly? On the other hand, we cannot but believe\nthat all miracles, whether wrought by angels or by other means, so long\nas they are so done as to commend the worship and religion of the one\nGod in whom alone is blessedness, are wrought by those who love us in\na true and godly sort, or through their means, God Himself working in\nthem. For we cannot listen to those who maintain that the invisible\nGod works no visible miracles; for even they believe that He made the\nworld, which surely they will not deny to be visible. Whatever marvel\nhappens in this world, it is certainly less marvellous than this whole\nworld itself,--I mean the sky and earth, and all that is in them,--and\nthese God certainly made. But, as the Creator Himself is hidden and\nincomprehensible to man, so also is the manner of creation. Although,\ntherefore, the standing miracle of this visible world is little\nthought of, because always before us, yet, when we arouse ourselves\nto contemplate it, it is a greater miracle than the rarest and most\nunheard-of marvels. For man himself is a greater miracle than any\nmiracle done through his instrumentality. Therefore God, who made the\nvisible heaven and earth, does not disdain to work visible miracles in\nheaven or earth, that He may thereby awaken the soul which is immersed\nin things visible to worship Himself, the Invisible. But the place and\ntime of these miracles are dependent on His unchangeable will, in which\nthings future are ordered as if already they were accomplished. For He\nmoves things temporal without Himself moving in time. He does not in\none way know things that are to be, and, in another, things that have\nbeen; neither does He listen to those who pray otherwise than as He\nsees those that will pray. For, even when His angels hear us, it is\nHe Himself who hears us in them, as in His true temple not made with\nhands, as in those men who are His saints; and His answers, though\naccomplished in time, have been arranged by His eternal appointment.\n\n\n    13. _Of the invisible God, who has often made Himself visible,\n   not as He really is, but as the beholders could bear the sight._\n\nNeither need we be surprised that God, invisible as He is, should\noften have appeared visibly to the patriarchs. For as the sound which\ncommunicates the thought conceived in the silence of the mind is\nnot the thought itself, so the form by which God, invisible in His\nown nature, became visible, was not God Himself. Nevertheless it is\nHe Himself who was seen under that form, as that thought itself is\nheard in the sound of the voice; and the patriarchs recognised that,\nthough the bodily form was not God, they saw the invisible God. For,\nthough Moses conversed with God, yet he said, 'If I have found grace\nin Thy sight, show me Thyself, that I may see and know Thee.'[401]\nAnd as it was fit that the law, which was given, not to one man or a\nfew enlightened men, but to the whole of a populous nation, should be\naccompanied by awe-inspiring signs, great marvels were wrought, by\nthe ministry of angels, before the people on the mount where the law\nwas being given to them through one man, while the multitude beheld\nthe awful appearances. For the people of Israel believed Moses, not\nas the Laced\u00e6monians believed their Lycurgus, because he had received\nfrom Jupiter or Apollo the laws he gave them. For when the law which\nenjoined the worship of one God was given to the people, marvellous\nsigns and earthquakes, such as the divine wisdom judged sufficient,\nwere brought about in the sight of all, that they might know that it\nwas the Creator who could thus use creation to promulgate His law.\n\n\n  14. _That the one God is to be worshipped not only for the sake\n      of eternal blessings, but also in connection with temporal\n      prosperity, because all things are regulated by His providence._\n\nThe education of the human race, represented by the people of God,\nhas advanced, like that of an individual, through certain epochs, or,\nas it were, ages, so that it might gradually rise from earthly to\nheavenly things, and from the visible to the invisible. This object\nwas kept so clearly in view, that, even in the period when temporal\nrewards were promised, the one God was presented as the object of\nworship, that men might not acknowledge any other than the true\nCreator and Lord of the spirit, even in connection with the earthly\nblessings of this transitory life. For he who denies that all things,\nwhich either angels or men can give us, are in the hand of the one\nAlmighty, is a madman. The Platonist Plotinus discourses concerning\nprovidence, and, from the beauty of flowers and foliage, proves\nthat from the supreme God, whose beauty is unseen and ineffable,\nprovidence reaches down even to these earthly things here below;\nand he argues that all these frail and perishing things could not\nhave so exquisite and elaborate a beauty, were they not fashioned\nby Him whose unseen and unchangeable beauty continually pervades\nall things.[402] This is proved also by the Lord Jesus, where He\nsays, 'Consider the lilies, how they grow; they toil not, neither\ndo they spin. And yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory\nwas not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothe the grass\nof the field, which to-day is and to-morrow is cast into the oven,\nhow much more shall He clothe you, O ye of little faith!'[403] It\nwas best, therefore, that the soul of man, which was still weakly\ndesiring earthly things, should be accustomed to seek from God alone\neven these petty temporal boons, and the earthly necessaries of this\ntransitory life, which are contemptible in comparison with eternal\nblessings, in order that the desire even of these things might not\ndraw it aside from the worship of Him, to whom we come by despising\nand forsaking such things.\n\n\n     15. _Of the ministry of the holy angels, by which they fulfil\n                        the providence of God._\n\nAnd so it has pleased Divine Providence, as I have said, and as we\nread in the Acts of the Apostles,[404] that the law enjoining the\nworship of one God should be given by the disposition of angels. But\namong them the person of God Himself visibly appeared, not, indeed,\nin His proper substance, which ever remains invisible to mortal eyes,\nbut by the infallible signs furnished by creation in obedience to its\nCreator. He made use, too, of the words of human speech, uttering\nthem syllable by syllable successively, though in His own nature He\nspeaks not in a bodily but in a spiritual way; not to sense, but\nto the mind; not in words that occupy time, but, if I may so say,\neternally, neither beginning to speak nor coming to an end. And what\nHe says is accurately heard, not by the bodily but by the mental\near of His ministers and messengers, who are immortally blessed in\nthe enjoyment of His unchangeable truth; and the directions which\nthey in some ineffable way receive, they execute without delay or\ndifficulty in the sensible and visible world. And this law was given\nin conformity with the age of the world, and contained at the first\nearthly promises, as I have said, which, however, symbolized eternal\nones; and these eternal blessings few understood, though many took a\npart in the celebration of their visible signs. Nevertheless, with\none consent both the words and the visible rites of that law enjoin\nthe worship of one God,--not one of a crowd of gods, but Him who made\nheaven and earth, and every soul and every spirit which is other than\nHimself. He created; all else was created; and, both for being and\nwell-being, all things need Him who created them.\n\n\n  16. _Whether those angels who demand that we pay them divine\n      honour, or those who teach us to render holy service, not to\n      themselves, but to God, are to be trusted about the way to life\n      eternal._\n\nWhat angels, then, are we to believe in this matter of blessed and\neternal life?--those who wish to be worshipped with religious rites\nand observances, and require that men sacrifice to them; or those who\nsay that all this worship is due to one God, the Creator, and teach us\nto render it with true piety to Him, by the vision of whom they are\nthemselves already blessed, and in whom they promise that we shall be\nso? For that vision of God is the beauty of a vision so great, and is\nso infinitely desirable, that Plotinus does not hesitate to say that\nhe who enjoys all other blessings in abundance, and has not this, is\nsupremely miserable.[405] Since, therefore, miracles are wrought by\nsome angels to induce us to worship this God, by others, to induce\nus to worship themselves; and since the former forbid us to worship\nthese, while the latter dare not forbid us to worship God, which\nare we to listen to? Let the Platonists reply, or any philosophers,\nor the theurgists, or rather, _periurgists_,[406]--for this name is\ngood enough for those who practise such arts. In short, let all men\nanswer,--if, at least, there survives in them any spark of that natural\nperception which, as rational beings, they possess when created,--let\nthem, I say, tell us whether we should sacrifice to the gods or\nangels who order us to sacrifice to them, or to that One to whom we\nare ordered to sacrifice by those who forbid us to worship either\nthemselves or these others. If neither the one party nor the other had\nwrought miracles, but had merely uttered commands, the one to sacrifice\nto themselves, the other forbidding that, and ordering us to sacrifice\nto God, a godly mind would have been at no loss to discern which\ncommand proceeded from proud arrogance, and which from true religion.\nI will say more. If miracles had been wrought only by those who demand\nsacrifice for themselves, while those who forbade this, and enjoined\nsacrificing to the one God only, thought fit entirely to forego the use\nof visible miracles, the authority of the latter was to be preferred\nby all who would use, not their eyes only, but their reason. But since\nGod, for the sake of commending to us the oracles of His truth, has, by\nmeans of these immortal messengers, who proclaim His majesty and not\ntheir own pride, wrought miracles of surpassing grandeur, certainty,\nand distinctness, in order that the weak among the godly might not be\ndrawn away to false religion by those who require us to sacrifice to\nthem and endeavour to convince us by stupendous appeals to our senses,\nwho is so utterly unreasonable as not to choose and follow the truth,\nwhen he finds that it is heralded by even more striking evidences than\nfalsehood?\n\nAs for those miracles which history ascribes to the gods of the\nheathen,--I do not refer to those prodigies which at intervals\nhappen from some unknown physical causes, and which are arranged and\nappointed by Divine Providence, such as monstrous births, and unusual\nmeteorological phenomena, whether startling only, or also injurious,\nand which are said to be brought about and removed by communication\nwith demons, and by their most deceitful craft,--but I refer to these\nprodigies which manifestly enough are wrought by their power and\nforce, as, that the household gods which \u00c6neas carried from Troy in\nhis flight moved from place to place; that Tarquin cut a whetstone\nwith a razor; that the Epidaurian serpent attached himself as a\ncompanion to \u00c6sculapius on his voyage to Rome; that the ship in which\nthe image of the Phrygian mother stood, and which could not be moved\nby a host of men and oxen, was moved by one weak woman, who attached\nher girdle to the vessel and drew it, as proof of her chastity; that\na vestal, whose virginity was questioned, removed the suspicion by\ncarrying from the Tiber a sieve full of water without any of it\ndropping: these, then, and the like, are by no means to be compared\nfor greatness and virtue to those which, we read, were wrought among\nGod's people. How much less can we compare those marvels, which even\nthe laws of heathen nations prohibit and punish,--I mean the magical\nand theurgic marvels, of which the great part are merely illusions\npractised upon the senses, as the drawing down of the moon, \"that,\"\nas Lucan says, \"it may shed a stronger influence on the plants?\"[407]\nAnd if some of these do seem to equal those which are wrought by the\ngodly, the end for which they are wrought distinguishes the two,\nand shows that ours are incomparably the more excellent. For those\nmiracles commend the worship of a plurality of gods, who deserve\nworship the less the more they demand it; but these of ours commend\nthe worship of the one God, who, both by the testimony of His own\nScriptures, and by the eventual abolition of sacrifices, proves\nthat He needs no such offerings. If, therefore, any angels demand\nsacrifice for themselves, we must prefer those who demand it, not\nfor themselves, but for God, the Creator of all, whom they serve.\nFor thus they prove how sincerely they love us, since they wish\nby sacrifice to subject us, not to themselves, but to Him by the\ncontemplation of whom they themselves are blessed, and to bring us to\nHim from whom they themselves have never strayed. If, on the other\nhand, any angels wish us to sacrifice, not to one, but to many, not,\nindeed, to themselves, but to the gods whose angels they are, we must\nin this case also prefer those who are the angels of the one God of\ngods, and who so bid us to worship Him as to preclude our worshipping\nany other. But, further, if it be the case, as their pride and\ndeceitfulness rather indicate, that they are neither good angels nor\nthe angels of good gods, but wicked demons, who wish sacrifice to be\npaid, not to the one only and supreme God, but to themselves, what\nbetter protection against them can we choose than that of the one God\nwhom the good angels serve, the angels who bid us sacrifice, not to\nthemselves, but to Him whose sacrifice we ourselves ought to be?\n\n\n   17. _Concerning the ark of the covenant, and the miraculous signs\n          whereby God authenticated the law and the promise._\n\nOn this account it was that the law of God, given by the disposition\nof angels, and which commanded that the one God of gods alone receive\nsacred worship, to the exclusion of all others, was deposited in the\nark, called the ark of the testimony. By this name it is sufficiently\nindicated, not that God, who was worshipped by all those rites, was\nshut up and enclosed in that place, though His responses emanated from\nit along with signs appreciable by the senses, but that His will was\ndeclared from that throne. The law itself, too, was engraven on tables\nof stone, and, as I have said, deposited in the ark, which the priests\ncarried with due reverence during the sojourn in the wilderness, along\nwith the tabernacle, which was in like manner called the tabernacle\nof the testimony; and there was then an accompanying sign, which\nappeared as a cloud by day and as a fire by night; when the cloud\nmoved, the camp was shifted, and where it stood the camp was pitched.\nBesides these signs, and the voices which proceeded from the place\nwhere the ark was, there were other miraculous testimonies to the law.\nFor when the ark was carried across Jordan, on the entrance to the\nland of promise, the upper part of the river stopped in its course,\nand the lower part flowed on, so as to present both to the ark and\nthe people dry ground to pass over. Then, when it was carried seven\ntimes round the first hostile and polytheistic city they came to, its\nwalls suddenly fell down, though assaulted by no hand, struck by no\nbattering-ram. Afterwards, too, when they were now resident in the land\nof promise, and the ark had, in punishment of their sin, been taken\nby their enemies, its captors triumphantly placed it in the temple of\ntheir favourite god, and left it shut up there, but, on opening the\ntemple next day, they found the image they used to pray to fallen to\nthe ground and shamefully shattered. Then, being themselves alarmed by\nportents, and still more shamefully punished, they restored the ark\nof the testimony to the people from whom they had taken it. And what\nwas the manner of its restoration? They placed it on a wagon, and\nyoked to it cows from which they had taken the calves, and let them\nchoose their own course, expecting that in this way the divine will\nwould be indicated; and the cows, without any man driving or directing\nthem, steadily pursued the way to the Hebrews, without regarding the\nlowing of their calves, and thus restored the ark to its worshippers.\nTo God these and such like wonders are small, but they are mighty to\nterrify and give wholesome instruction to men. For if philosophers, and\nespecially the Platonists, are with justice esteemed wiser than other\nmen, as I have just been mentioning, because they taught that even\nthese earthly and insignificant things are ruled by Divine Providence,\ninferring this from the numberless beauties which are observable not\nonly in the bodies of animals, but even in plants and grasses, how much\nmore plainly do these things attest the presence of divinity which\nhappen at the time predicted, and in which that religion is commended\nwhich forbids the offering of sacrifice to any celestial, terrestrial,\nor infernal being, and commands it to be offered to God only, who alone\nblesses us by His love for us, and by our love to Him, and who, by\narranging the appointed times of those sacrifices, and by predicting\nthat they were to pass into a better sacrifice by a better Priest,\ntestified that He has no appetite for these sacrifices, but through\nthem indicated others of more substantial blessing,--and all this not\nthat He Himself may be glorified by these honours, but that we may be\nstirred up to worship and cleave to Him, being inflamed by His love,\nwhich is our advantage rather than His?\n\n\n  18. _Against those who deny that the books of the Church are to\n      be believed about the miracles whereby the people of God were\n      educated._\n\nWill some one say that these miracles are false, that they never\nhappened, and that the records of them are lies? Whoever says so, and\nasserts that in such matters no records whatever can be credited,\nmay also say that there are no gods who care for human affairs. For\nthey have induced men to worship them only by means of miraculous\nworks, which the heathen histories testify, and by which the gods\nhave made a display of their own power rather than done any real\nservice. This is the reason why we have not undertaken in this\nwork, of which we are now writing the tenth book, to refute those\nwho either deny that there is any divine power, or contend that it\ndoes not interfere with human affairs, but those who prefer their\nown god to our God, the Founder of the holy and most glorious city,\nnot knowing that He is also the invisible and unchangeable Founder\nof this visible and changing world, and the truest bestower of the\nblessed life which resides not in things created, but in Himself.\nFor thus speaks His most trustworthy prophet: \"It is good for me to\nbe united to God.\"[408] Among philosophers it is a question, what\nis that end and good to the attainment of which all our duties are\nto have a relation? The Psalmist did not say, It is good for me to\nhave great wealth, or to wear imperial insignia, purple, sceptre,\nand diadem; or, as some even of the philosophers have not blushed to\nsay, It is good for me to enjoy sensual pleasure; or, as the better\nmen among them seemed to say, My good is my spiritual strength; but,\n\"It is good for me to be united to God.\" This he had learned from\nHim whom the holy angels, with the accompanying witness of miracles,\npresented as the sole object of worship. And hence he himself became\nthe sacrifice of God, whose spiritual love inflamed him, and into\nwhose ineffable and incorporeal embrace he yearned to cast himself.\nMoreover, if the worshippers of many gods (whatever kind of gods they\nfancy their own to be) believe that the miracles recorded in their\ncivil histories, or in the books of magic, or of the more respectable\ntheurgy, were wrought by these gods, what reason have they for\nrefusing to believe the miracles recorded in those writings, to which\nwe owe a credence as much greater as He is greater to whom alone\nthese writings teach us to sacrifice?\n\n\n     19. _On the reasonableness of offering, as the true religion\n   teaches, a visible sacrifice to the one true and invisible God._\n\nAs to those who think that these visible sacrifices are suitably\noffered to other gods, but that invisible sacrifices, the graces of\npurity of mind and holiness of will, should be offered, as greater\nand better, to the invisible God, Himself greater and better than\nall others, they must be oblivious that these visible sacrifices\nare signs of the invisible, as the words we utter are the signs of\nthings. And therefore, as in prayer or praise we direct intelligible\nwords to Him to whom in our heart we offer the very feelings we\nare expressing, so we are to understand that in sacrifice we offer\nvisible sacrifice only to Him to whom in our heart we ought to\npresent ourselves an invisible sacrifice. It is then that the angels,\nand all those superior powers who are mighty by their goodness and\npiety, regard us with pleasure, and rejoice with us and assist us to\nthe utmost of their power. But if we offer such worship to them, they\ndecline it; and when on any mission to men they become visible to the\nsenses, they positively forbid it. Examples of this occur in holy\nwrit. Some fancied they should, by adoration or sacrifice, pay the\nsame honour to angels as is due to God, and were prevented from doing\nso by the angels themselves, and ordered to render it to Him to whom\nalone they know it to be due. And the holy angels have in this been\nimitated by holy men of God. For Paul and Barnabas, when they had\nwrought a miracle of healing in Lycaonia, were thought to be gods,\nand the Lycaonians desired to sacrifice to them, and they humbly and\npiously declined this honour, and announced to them the God in whom\nthey should believe. And those deceitful and proud spirits, who exact\nworship, do so simply because they know it to be due to the true God.\nFor that which they take pleasure in is not, as Porphyry says and\nsome fancy, the smell of the victims, but divine honours. They have,\nin fact, plenty odours on all hands, and if they wished more, they\ncould provide them for themselves. But the spirits who arrogate to\nthemselves divinity are delighted not with the smoke of carcases, but\nwith the suppliant spirit which they deceive and hold in subjection,\nand hinder from drawing near to God, preventing him from offering\nhimself in sacrifice to God by inducing him to sacrifice to others.\n\n\n   20. _Of the supreme and true sacrifice which was effected by the\n                    Mediator between God and men._\n\nAnd hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a\nservant, He became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ\nJesus, though in the form of God He received sacrifice together with\nthe Father, with whom He is one God, yet in the form of a servant He\nchose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by\nthis instance any one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice\nshould be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who\noffers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should\nbe a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which,\nbeing His body, learns to offer herself through Him. Of this true\nSacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and\nnumerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing\nis signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness\nwhen we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all\nfalse sacrifices have given place.\n\n\n  21. _Of the power delegated to demons for the trial and\n      glorification of the saints, who conquer not by propitiating\n      the spirits of the air, but by abiding in God._\n\nThe power delegated to the demons at certain appointed and\nwell-adjusted seasons, that they may give expression to their\nhostility to the city of God by stirring up against it the men\nwho are under their influence, and may not only receive sacrifice\nfrom those who willingly offer it, but may also extort it from the\nunwilling by violent persecution;--this power is found to be not\nmerely harmless, but even useful to the Church, completing as it\ndoes the number of martyrs, whom the city of God esteems as all the\nmore illustrious and honoured citizens, because they have striven\neven to blood against the sin of impiety. If the ordinary language\nof the Church allowed it, we might more elegantly call these men our\nheroes. For this name is said to be derived from Juno, who in Greek\nis called H\u00ear\u00ea, and hence, according to the Greek myths, one of her\nsons was called Heros. And these fables mystically signified that\nJuno was mistress of the air, which they suppose to be inhabited\nby the demons and the heroes, understanding by heroes the souls of\nthe well-deserving dead. But for a quite opposite reason would we\ncall our martyrs heroes,--supposing, as I said, that the usage of\necclesiastical language would admit of it,--not because they lived\nalong with the demons in the air, but because they conquered these\ndemons or powers of the air, and among them Juno herself, be she\nwhat she may, not unsuitably represented, as she commonly is by the\npoets, as hostile to virtue, and jealous of men of mark aspiring to\nthe heavens. Virgil, however, unhappily gives way, and yields to\nher; for, though he represents her as saying, \"I am conquered by\n\u00c6neas,\"[409] Helenus gives \u00c6neas himself this religious advice:\n\n          \"Pay vows to Juno: overbear\n           Her queenly soul with gift and prayer.\"[410]\n\nIn conformity with this opinion, Porphyry--expressing, however, not\nso much his own views as other people's--says that a good god or\ngenius cannot come to a man unless the evil genius has been first of\nall propitiated, implying that the evil deities had greater power\nthan the good; for, until they have been appeased and give place, the\ngood can give no assistance; and if the evil deities oppose, the good\ncan give no help; whereas the evil can do injury without the good\nbeing able to prevent them. This is not the way of the true and truly\nholy religion; not thus do our martyrs conquer Juno, that is to say,\nthe powers of the air, who envy the virtues of the pious. Our heroes,\nif we could so call them, overcome H\u00ear\u00ea, not by suppliant gifts, but\nby divine virtues. As Scipio, who conquered Africa by his valour, is\nmore suitably styled Africanus than if he had appeased his enemies by\ngifts, and so won their mercy.\n\n\n      22. _Whence the saints derive power against demons and true\n                        purification of heart._\n\nIt is by true piety that men of God cast out the hostile power\nof the air which opposes godliness; it is by exorcising it, not\nby propitiating it; and they overcome all the temptations of the\nadversary by praying, not to him, but to their own God against him.\nFor the devil cannot conquer or subdue any but those who are in\nleague with sin; and therefore he is conquered in the name of Him\nwho assumed humanity, and that without sin, that Himself being both\nPriest and Sacrifice, He might bring about the remission of sins,\nthat is to say, might bring it about through the Mediator between God\nand men, the man Christ Jesus, by whom we are reconciled to God, the\ncleansing from sin being accomplished. For men are separated from\nGod only by sins, from which we are in this life cleansed not by our\nown virtue, but by the divine compassion; through His indulgence,\nnot through our own power. For, whatever virtue we call our own is\nitself bestowed upon us by His goodness. And we might attribute too\nmuch to ourselves while in the flesh, unless we lived in the receipt\nof pardon until we laid it down. This is the reason why there has\nbeen vouchsafed to us, through the Mediator, this grace, that we who\nare polluted by sinful flesh should be cleansed by the likeness of\nsinful flesh. By this grace of God, wherein He has shown His great\ncompassion toward us, we are both governed by faith in this life,\nand, after this life, are led onwards to the fullest perfection by\nthe vision of immutable truth.\n\n\n      23. _Of the principles which, according to the Platonists,\n                regulate the purification of the soul._\n\nEven Porphyry asserts that it was revealed by divine oracles that\nwe are not purified by any sacrifices[411] to sun or moon, meaning\nit to be inferred that we are not purified by sacrificing to any\ngods. For what mysteries can purify, if those of the sun and moon,\nwhich are esteemed the chief of the celestial gods, do not purify?\nHe says, too, in the same place, that \"principles\" can purify,\nlest it should be supposed, from his saying that sacrificing to\nthe sun and moon cannot purify, that sacrificing to some other of\nthe host of gods might do so. And what he as a Platonist means by\n\"principles,\" we know.[412] For he speaks of God the Father and God\nthe Son, whom he calls (writing in Greek) the intellect or mind of\nthe Father;[413] but of the Holy Spirit he says either nothing, or\nnothing plainly, for I do not understand what other he speaks of as\nholding the middle place between these two. For if, like Plotinus\nin his discussion regarding the three principal substances,[414] he\nwished us to understand by this third the soul of nature, he would\ncertainly not have given it the middle place between these two, that\nis, between the Father and the Son. For Plotinus places the soul of\nnature after the intellect of the Father, while Porphyry, making it\nthe mean, does not place it after, but between the others. No doubt\nhe spoke according to his light, or as he thought expedient; but we\nassert that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit not of the Father only, nor\nof the Son only, but of both. For philosophers speak as they have a\nmind to, and in the most difficult matters do not scruple to offend\nreligious ears; but we are bound to speak according to a certain\nrule, lest freedom of speech beget impiety of opinion about the\nmatters themselves of which we speak.\n\n\n  24. _Of the one only true principle which alone purifies and renews\n                            human nature._\n\nAccordingly, when we speak of God, we do not affirm two or three\nprinciples, no more than we are at liberty to affirm two or three gods;\nalthough, speaking of each, of the Father, or of the Son, or of the\nHoly Ghost, we confess that each is God: and yet we do not say, as the\nSabellian heretics say, that the Father is the same as the Son, and the\nHoly Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; but we say that the\nFather is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father,\nand that the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son is neither the\nFather nor the Son. It was therefore truly said that man is cleansed\nonly by a Principle, although the Platonists erred in speaking in the\nplural of _principles_. But Porphyry, being under the dominion of\nthese envious powers, whose influence he was at once ashamed of and\nafraid to throw off, refused to recognise that Christ is the Principle\nby whose incarnation we are purified. Indeed he despised Him, because\nof the flesh itself which He assumed, that He might offer a sacrifice\nfor our purification,--a great mystery, unintelligible to Porphyry's\npride, which that true and benignant Redeemer brought low by His\nhumility, manifesting Himself to mortals by the mortality which He\nassumed, and which the malignant and deceitful mediators are proud of\nwanting, promising, as the boon of immortals, a deceptive assistance\nto wretched men. Thus the good and true Mediator showed that it is sin\nwhich is evil, and not the substance or nature of flesh; for this,\ntogether with the human soul, could without sin be both assumed and\nretained, and laid down in death, and changed to something better by\nresurrection. He showed also that death itself, although the punishment\nof sin, was submitted to by Him for our sakes without sin, and must\nnot be evaded by sin on our part, but rather, if opportunity serves,\nbe borne for righteousness' sake. For he was able to expiate sins by\ndying, because He both died, and not for sin of His own. But He has\nnot been recognised by Porphyry as the Principle, otherwise he would\nhave recognised Him as the Purifier. The Principle is neither the flesh\nnor the human soul in Christ, but the Word by which all things were\nmade. The flesh, therefore, does not by its own virtue purify, but\nby virtue of the Word by which it was assumed, when \"the Word became\nflesh and dwelt among us.\"[415] For, speaking mystically of eating His\nflesh, when those who did not understand Him were offended and went\naway, saying, \"This is an hard saying, who can hear it?\" He answered\nto the rest who remained, \"It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh\nprofiteth nothing.\"[416] The Principle, therefore, having assumed\na human soul and flesh, cleanses the soul and flesh of believers.\nTherefore, when the Jews asked Him who He was, He answered that He\nwas the _Principle_.[417] And this we carnal and feeble men, liable\nto sin, and involved in the darkness of ignorance, could not possibly\nunderstand, unless we were cleansed and healed by Him, both by means\nof what we were, and of what we were not. For we were men, but we were\nnot righteous; whereas in His incarnation there was a human nature, but\nit was righteous, and not sinful. This is the mediation whereby a hand\nis stretched to the lapsed and fallen; this is the seed \"ordained by\nangels,\" by whose ministry the law also was given enjoining the worship\nof one God, and promising that this Mediator should come.\n\n\n   25. _That all the saints, both under the law and before it, were\n      justified by faith in the mystery of Christ's incarnation._\n\nIt was by faith in this mystery, and godliness of life, that\npurification was attainable even by the saints of old, whether before\nthe law was given to the Hebrews (for God and the angels were even then\npresent as instructors), or in the periods under the law, although the\npromises of spiritual things, being presented in figure, seemed to\nbe carnal, and hence the name of Old Testament. For it was then the\nprophets lived, by whom, as by angels, the same promise was announced;\nand among them was he whose grand and divine sentiment regarding the\nend and supreme good of man I have just now quoted, \"It is good for\nme to cleave to God.\"[418] In this psalm the distinction between the\nOld and New Testaments is distinctly announced. For the Psalmist says,\nthat when he saw that the carnal and earthly promises were abundantly\nenjoyed by the ungodly, his feet were almost gone, his steps had\nwell-nigh slipped; and that it seemed to him as if he had served God\nin vain, when he saw that those who despised God increased in that\nprosperity which he looked for at God's hand. He says, too, that, in\ninvestigating this matter with the desire of understanding why it was\nso, he had laboured in vain, until he went into the sanctuary of God,\nand understood the end of those whom he had erroneously considered\nhappy. Then he understood that they were cast down by that very thing,\nas he says, which they had made their boast, and that they had been\nconsumed and perished for their iniquities; and that that whole fabric\nof temporal prosperity had become as a dream when one awaketh, and\nsuddenly finds himself destitute of all the joys he had imaged in\nsleep. And, as in this earth or earthy city they seemed to themselves\nto be great, he says, \"O Lord, in Thy city Thou wilt reduce their image\nto nothing.\" He also shows how beneficial it had been for him to seek\neven earthly blessings only from the one true God, in whose power are\nall things, for he says, \"As a beast was I before Thee, and I am always\nwith Thee.\" \"As a beast,\" he says, meaning that he was stupid. For I\nought to have sought from Thee such things as the ungodly could not\nenjoy as well as I, and not those things which I saw them enjoying in\nabundance, and hence concluded I was serving Thee in vain, because\nthey who declined to serve Thee had what I had not. Nevertheless, \"I\nam always with Thee,\" because even in my desire for such things I did\nnot pray to other gods. And consequently he goes on, \"Thou hast holden\nme by my right hand, and by Thy counsel Thou hast guided me, and with\nglory hast taken me up;\" as if all earthly advantages were left-hand\nblessings, though, when he saw them enjoyed by the wicked, his feet\nhad almost gone. \"For what,\" he says, \"have I in heaven, and what have\nI desired from Thee upon earth?\" He blames himself, and is justly\ndispleased with himself; because, though he had in heaven so vast a\npossession (as he afterwards understood), he yet sought from his God\non earth a transitory and fleeting happiness,--a happiness of mire, we\nmay say. \"My heart and my flesh,\" he says, \"fail, O God of my heart.\"\nHappy failure, from things below to things above! And hence in another\npsalm he says, \"My soul longeth, yea, even faileth, for the courts\nof the Lord.\"[419] Yet, though he had said of both his heart and his\nflesh that they were failing, he did not say, O God of my heart and\nmy flesh, but, O God of my heart; for by the heart the flesh is made\nclean. Therefore, says the Lord, \"Cleanse that which is within, and the\noutside shall be clean also.\"[420] He then says that God Himself,--not\nanything received from Him, but Himself,--is his portion. \"The God of\nmy heart, and my portion for ever.\" Among the various objects of human\nchoice, God alone satisfied him. \"For, lo,\" he says, \"they that are\nfar from Thee shall perish: Thou destroyest all them that go a-whoring\nfrom Thee,\"--that is, who prostitute themselves to many gods. And then\nfollows the verse for which all the rest of the psalm seems to prepare:\n\"It is good for me to cleave to God,\"--not to go far off; not to go\na-whoring with a multitude of gods. And then shall this union with God\nbe perfected, when all that is to be redeemed in us has been redeemed.\nBut for the present we must, as he goes on to say, \"place our hope in\nGod.\" \"For that which is seen,\" says the apostle, \"is not hope. For\nwhat a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that\nwe see not, then do we with patience wait for it.\"[421] Being, then,\nfor the present established in this hope, let us do what the Psalmist\nfurther indicates, and become in our measure angels or messengers of\nGod, declaring His will, and praising His glory and His grace. For\nwhen he had said, \"To place my hope in God,\" he goes on, \"that I may\ndeclare all Thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.\" This\nis the most glorious city of God; this is the city which knows and\nworships one God: she is celebrated by the holy angels, who invite us\nto their society, and desire us to become fellow-citizens with them in\nthis city; for they do not wish us to worship them as our gods, but to\njoin them in worshipping their God and ours; nor to sacrifice to them,\nbut, together with them, to become a sacrifice to God. Accordingly,\nwhoever will lay aside malignant obstinacy, and consider these things,\nshall be assured that all these blessed and immortal spirits, who do\nnot envy us (for if they envied they were not blessed), but rather\nlove us, and desire us to be as blessed as themselves, look on us with\ngreater pleasure, and give us greater assistance, when we join them in\nworshipping one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, than if we were to\noffer to themselves sacrifice and worship.\n\n\n   26. _Of Porphyry's weakness in wavering between the confession of\n               the true God and the worship of demons._\n\nI know not how it is so, but it seems to me that Porphyry blushed for\nhis friends the theurgists; for he knew all that I have adduced, but\ndid not frankly condemn polytheistic worship. He said, in fact, that\nthere are some angels who visit earth, and reveal divine truth to\ntheurgists, and others who publish on earth the things that belong to\nthe Father, His height and depth. Can we believe, then, that the angels\nwhose office it is to declare the will of the Father, wish us to be\nsubject to any but Him whose will they declare? And hence, even this\nPlatonist himself judiciously observes that we should rather imitate\nthan invoke them. We ought not, then, to fear that we may offend these\nimmortal and happy subjects of the one God by not sacrificing to them;\nfor this they know to be due only to the one true God, in allegiance\nto whom they themselves find their blessedness, and therefore they\nwill not have it given to them, either in figure or in the reality,\nwhich the mysteries of sacrifice symbolized. Such arrogance belongs to\nproud and wretched demons, whose disposition is diametrically opposite\nto the piety of those who are subject to God, and whose blessedness\nconsists in attachment to Him. And, that we also may attain to this\nbliss, they aid us, as is fit, with sincere kindliness, and usurp over\nus no dominion, but declare to us Him under whose rule we are then\nfellow-subjects. Why, then, O philosopher, do you still fear to speak\nfreely against the powers which are inimical both to true virtue and\nto the gifts of the true God? Already you have discriminated between\nthe angels who proclaim God's will, and those who visit theurgists,\ndrawn down by I know not what art. Why do you still ascribe to these\nlatter the honour of declaring divine truth? If they do not declare\nthe will of the Father, what divine revelations can they make? Are not\nthese the evil spirits who were bound over by the incantations of an\nenvious man,[422] that they should not grant purity of soul to another,\nand could not, as you say, be set free from these bonds by a good man\nanxious for purity, and recover power over their own actions? Do you\nstill doubt whether these are wicked demons; or do you, perhaps, feign\nignorance, that you may not give offence to the theurgists, who have\nallured you by their secret rites, and have taught you, as a mighty\nboon, these insane and pernicious devilries? Do you dare to elevate\nabove the air, and even to heaven, these envious powers, or pests,\nlet me rather call them, less worthy of the name of sovereign than of\nslaves, as you yourself own; and are you not ashamed to place them even\namong your sidereal gods, and so put a slight upon the stars themselves?\n\n\n     27. _Of the impiety of Porphyry, which is worse than even the\n                         mistake of Apuleius._\n\nHow much more tolerable and accordant with human feeling is the\nerror of your Platonist co-sectary Apuleius! for he attributed the\ndiseases and storms of human passions only to the demons who occupy a\ngrade beneath the moon, and makes even this avowal as by constraint\nregarding gods whom he honours; but the superior and celestial gods,\nwho inhabit the ethereal regions, whether visible, as the sun, moon,\nand other luminaries, whose brilliancy makes them conspicuous, or\ninvisible, but believed in by him, he does his utmost to remove\nbeyond the slightest stain of these perturbations. It is not, then,\nfrom Plato, but from your Chald\u00e6an teachers you have learned to\nelevate human vices to the ethereal and empyreal regions of the world\nand to the celestial firmament, in order that your theurgists might\nbe able to obtain from your gods divine revelations; and yet you make\nyourself superior to these divine revelations by your intellectual\nlife, which dispenses with these theurgic purifications as not\nneeded by a philosopher. But, by way of rewarding your teachers, you\nrecommend these arts to other men, who, not being philosophers, may\nbe persuaded to use what you acknowledge to be useless to yourself,\nwho are capable of higher things; so that those who cannot avail\nthemselves of the virtue of philosophy, which is too arduous for the\nmultitude, may, at your instigation, betake themselves to theurgists\nby whom they may be purified, not, indeed, in the intellectual, but\nin the spiritual part of the soul. Now, as the persons who are unfit\nfor philosophy form incomparably the majority of mankind, more may\nbe compelled to consult these secret and illicit teachers of yours\nthan frequent the Platonic schools. For these most impure demons,\npretending to be ethereal gods, whose herald and messenger you have\nbecome, have promised that those who are purified by theurgy in the\nspiritual part of their soul shall not indeed return to the Father,\nbut shall dwell among the ethereal gods above the aerial regions. But\nsuch fancies are not listened to by the multitudes of men whom Christ\ncame to set free from the tyranny of demons. For in Him they have\nthe most gracious cleansing, in which mind, spirit, and body alike\nparticipate. For, in order that He might heal the whole man from the\nplague of sin, He took without sin the whole human nature. Would that\nyou had known Him, and would that you had committed yourself for\nhealing to Him rather than to your own frail and infirm human virtue,\nor to pernicious and curious arts! He would not have deceived you;\nfor Him your own oracles, on your own showing, acknowledged holy\nand immortal. It is of Him, too, that the most famous poet speaks,\npoetically indeed, since he applies it to the person of another, yet\ntruly, if you refer it to Christ, saying, \"Under thine auspices,\nif any traces of our crimes remain, they shall be obliterated, and\nearth freed from its perpetual fear.\"[423] By which he indicates\nthat, by reason of the infirmity which attaches to this life, the\ngreatest progress in virtue and righteousness leaves room for the\nexistence, if not of crimes, yet of the traces of crimes, which are\nobliterated only by that Saviour of whom this verse speaks. For that\nhe did not say this at the prompting of his own fancy, Virgil tells\nus in almost the last verse of that 4th Eclogue, when he says, \"The\nlast age predicted by the Cum\u00e6an sibyl has now arrived;\" whence it\nplainly appears that this had been dictated by the Cum\u00e6an sibyl. But\nthose theurgists, or rather demons, who assume the appearance and\nform of gods, pollute rather than purify the human spirit by false\nappearances and the delusive mockery of unsubstantial forms. How\ncan those whose own spirit is unclean cleanse the spirit of man?\nWere they not unclean, they would not be bound by the incantations\nof an envious man, and would neither be afraid nor grudge to bestow\nthat hollow boon which they promise. But it is sufficient for our\npurpose that you acknowledge that the intellectual soul, that is, our\nmind, cannot be justified by theurgy; and that even the spiritual\nor inferior part of our soul cannot by this act be made eternal\nand immortal, though you maintain that it can be purified by it.\nChrist, however, promises life eternal; and therefore to Him the\nworld flocks, greatly to your indignation, greatly also to your\nastonishment and confusion. What avails your forced avowal that\ntheurgy leads men astray, and deceives vast numbers by its ignorant\nand foolish teaching, and that it is the most manifest mistake to\nhave recourse by prayer and sacrifice to angels and principalities,\nwhen at the same time, to save yourself from the charge of spending\nlabour in vain on such arts, you direct men to the theurgists, that\nby their means men, who do not live by the rule of the intellectual\nsoul, may have their spiritual soul purified?\n\n\n  28. _How it is that Porphyry has been so blind as not to recognise\n                       the true wisdom--Christ._\n\nYou drive men, therefore, into the most palpable error. And yet you\nare not ashamed of doing so much harm, though you call yourself a\nlover of virtue and wisdom. Had you been true and faithful in this\nprofession, you would have recognised Christ, the virtue of God and\nthe wisdom of God, and would not, in the pride of vain science, have\nrevolted from His wholesome humility. Nevertheless you acknowledge\nthat the spiritual part of the soul can be purified by the virtue\nof chastity without the aid of those theurgic arts and mysteries\nwhich you wasted your time in learning. You even say, sometimes,\nthat these mysteries do not raise the soul after death, so that,\nafter the termination of this life, they seem to be of no service\neven to the part you call spiritual; and yet you recur on every\nopportunity to these arts, for no other purpose, so far as I see,\nthan to appear an accomplished theurgist, and gratify those who are\ncurious in illicit arts, or else to inspire others with the same\ncuriosity. But we give you all praise for saying that this art is\nto be feared, both on account of the legal enactments against it,\nand by reason of the danger involved in the very practice of it. And\nwould that in this, at least, you were listened to by its wretched\nvotaries, that they might be withdrawn from entire absorption in it,\nor might even be preserved from tampering with it at all! You say,\nindeed, that ignorance, and the numberless vices resulting from it,\ncannot be removed by any mysteries, but only by the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2,\nthat is, the Father's mind or intellect conscious of the Father's\nwill. But that Christ is this mind you do not believe; for Him you\ndespise on account of the body He took of a woman and the shame of\nthe cross; for your lofty wisdom spurns such low and contemptible\nthings, and soars to more exalted regions. But He fulfils what\nthe holy prophets truly predicted regarding Him: \"I will destroy\nthe wisdom of the wise, and bring to nought the prudence of the\nprudent.\"[424] For He does not destroy and bring to nought His own\ngift in them, but what they arrogate to themselves, and do not hold\nof Him. And hence the apostle, having quoted this testimony from\nthe prophet, adds, \"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where\nis the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom\nof this world? For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by\nwisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching\nto save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the\nGreeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the\nJews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto\nthem which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of\nGod, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser\nthan men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.\"[425] This\nis despised as a weak and foolish thing by those who are wise and\nstrong in themselves; yet this is the grace which heals the weak, who\ndo not proudly boast a blessedness of their own, but rather humbly\nacknowledge their real misery.\n\n\n      29. _Of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the\n          Platonists in their impiety blush to acknowledge._\n\nYou proclaim the Father and His Son, whom you call the Father's\nintellect or mind, and between these a third, by whom we suppose you\nmean the Holy Spirit, and in your own fashion you call these three\nGods. In this, though your expressions are inaccurate, you do in some\nsort, and as through a veil, see what we should strive towards; but\nthe incarnation of the unchangeable Son of God, whereby we are saved,\nand are enabled to reach the things we believe, or in part understand,\nthis is what you refuse to recognise. You see in a fashion, although\nat a distance, although with filmy eye, the country in which we should\nabide; but the way to it you know not. Yet you believe in grace, for\nyou say it is granted to few to reach God by virtue of intelligence.\nFor you do not say, \"Few have thought fit or have wished,\" but, \"It\nhas been granted to few,\"--distinctly acknowledging God's grace,\nnot man's sufficiency. You also use this word more expressly, when,\nin accordance with the opinion of Plato, you make no doubt that in\nthis life a man cannot by any means attain to perfect wisdom, but\nthat whatever is lacking is in the future life made up to those who\nlive intellectually, by God's providence and grace. Oh, had you but\nrecognised the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that very\nincarnation of His, wherein He assumed a human soul and body, you\nmight have seemed the brightest example of grace![426] But what am\nI doing? I know it is useless to speak to a dead man,--useless, at\nleast, so far as regards you, but perhaps not in vain for those who\nesteem you highly, and love you on account of their love of wisdom or\ncuriosity about those arts which you ought not to have learned; and\nthese persons I address in your name. The grace of God could not have\nbeen more graciously commended to us than thus, that the only Son of\nGod, remaining unchangeable in Himself, should assume humanity, and\nshould give us the hope of His love, by means of the mediation of\na human nature, through which we, from the condition of men, might\ncome to Him who was so far off,--the immortal from the mortal; the\nunchangeable from the changeable; the just from the unjust; the blessed\nfrom the wretched. And, as He had given us a natural instinct to desire\nblessedness and immortality, He Himself continuing to be blessed, but\nassuming mortality, by enduring what we fear, taught us to despise it,\nthat what we long for He might bestow upon us.\n\nBut in order to your acquiescence in this truth, it is lowliness that\nis requisite, and to this it is extremely difficult to bend you. For\nwhat is there incredible, especially to men like you, accustomed to\nspeculation, which might have predisposed you to believe in this,--what\nis there incredible, I say, in the assertion that God assumed a\nhuman soul and body? You yourselves ascribe such excellence to the\nintellectual soul, which is, after all, the human soul, that you\nmaintain that it can become consubstantial with that intelligence of\nthe Father whom you believe in as the Son of God. What incredible\nthing is it, then, if some one soul be assumed by Him in an ineffable\nand unique manner for the salvation of many? Moreover, our nature\nitself testifies that a man is incomplete unless a body be united with\nthe soul. This certainly would be more incredible, were it not of all\nthings the most common; for we should more easily believe in a union\nbetween spirit and spirit, or, to use your own terminology, between the\nincorporeal and the incorporeal, even though the one were human, the\nother divine, the one changeable and the other unchangeable, than in a\nunion between the corporeal and the incorporeal. But perhaps it is the\nunprecedented birth of a body from a virgin that staggers you? But,\nso far from this being a difficulty, it ought rather to assist you to\nreceive our religion, that a miraculous person was born miraculously.\nOr, do you find a difficulty in the fact that, after His body had been\ngiven up to death, and had been changed into a higher kind of body\nby resurrection, and was now no longer mortal but incorruptible, He\ncarried it up into heavenly places? Perhaps you refuse to believe this,\nbecause you remember that Porphyry, in these very books from which\nI have cited so much, and which treat of the return of the soul, so\nfrequently teaches that a body of every kind is to be escaped from, in\norder that the soul may dwell in blessedness with God. But here, in\nplace of following Porphyry, you ought rather to have corrected him,\nespecially since you agree with him in believing such incredible things\nabout the soul of this visible world and huge material frame. For, as\nscholars of Plato, you hold that the world is an animal, and a very\nhappy animal, which you wish to be also everlasting. How, then, is\nit never to be loosed from a body, and yet never lose its happiness,\nif, in order to the happiness of the soul, the body must be left\nbehind? The sun, too, and the other stars, you not only acknowledge\nto be bodies, in which you have the cordial assent of all seeing men,\nbut also, in obedience to what you reckon a profounder insight, you\ndeclare that they are very blessed animals, and eternal, together\nwith their bodies. Why is it, then, that when the Christian faith is\npressed upon you, you forget, or pretend to ignore, what you habitually\ndiscuss or teach? Why is it that you refuse to be Christians, on the\nground that you hold opinions which, in fact, you yourselves demolish?\nIs it not because Christ came in lowliness, and ye are proud? The\nprecise nature of the resurrection bodies of the saints may sometimes\noccasion discussion among those who are best read in the Christian\nScriptures; yet there is not among us the smallest doubt that they\nshall be everlasting, and of a nature exemplified in the instance of\nChrist's risen body. But whatever be their nature, since we maintain\nthat they shall be absolutely incorruptible and immortal, and shall\noffer no hindrance to the soul's contemplation by which it is fixed\nin God, and as you say that among the celestials the bodies of the\neternally blessed are eternal, why do you maintain that, in order to\nblessedness, every body must be escaped from? Why do you thus seek\nsuch a plausible reason for escaping from the Christian faith, if not\nbecause, as I again say, Christ is humble and ye proud? Are ye ashamed\nto be corrected? This is the vice of the proud. It is, forsooth, a\ndegradation for learned men to pass from the school of Plato to the\ndiscipleship of Christ, who by His Spirit taught a fisherman to think\nand to say, \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,\nand the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All\nthings were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that\nwas made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the\nlight shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.\"[427]\nThe old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used to tell me\nthat a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening\npassage of the holy gospel, entitled \"According to John,\" should be\nwritten in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches in the most\nconspicuous place. But the proud scorn to take God for their Master,\nbecause \"the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.\"[428] So that,\nwith these miserable creatures, it is not enough that they are sick,\nbut they boast of their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which\ncould heal them. And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more\ndisastrous fall.\n\n\n     30. _Porphyry's emendations and modifications of Platonism._\n\nIf it is considered unseemly to emend anything which Plato has\ntouched, why did Porphyry himself make emendations, and these not\na few? for it is very certain that Plato wrote that the souls of\nmen return after death to the bodies of beasts.[429] Plotinus also,\nPorphyry's teacher, held this opinion;[430] yet Porphyry justly\nrejected it. He was of opinion that human souls return indeed into\nhuman bodies, but not into the bodies they had left, but other new\nbodies. He shrank from the other opinion, lest a woman who had\nreturned into a mule might possibly carry her own son on her back. He\ndid not shrink, however, from a theory which admitted the possibility\nof a mother coming back into a girl and marrying her own son. How\nmuch more honourable a creed is that which was taught by the holy\nand truthful angels, uttered by the prophets who were moved by God's\nSpirit, preached by Him who was foretold as the coming Saviour by His\nforerunning heralds, and by the apostles whom He sent forth, and who\nfilled the whole world with the gospel,--how much more honourable,\nI say, is the belief that souls return once for all to their own\nbodies, than that they return again and again to divers bodies?\nNevertheless Porphyry, as I have said, did considerably improve upon\nthis opinion, in so far, at least, as he maintained that human souls\ncould transmigrate only into human bodies, and made no scruple about\ndemolishing the bestial prisons into which Plato had wished to cast\nthem. He says, too, that God put the soul into the world that it\nmight recognise the evils of matter, and return to the Father, and\nbe for ever emancipated from the polluting contact of matter. And\nalthough here is some inappropriate thinking (for the soul is rather\ngiven to the body that it may do good; for it would not learn evil\nunless it did it), yet he corrects the opinion of other Platonists,\nand that on a point of no small importance, inasmuch as he avows that\nthe soul, which is purged from all evil and received to the Father's\npresence, shall never again suffer the ills of this life. By this\nopinion he quite subverted the favourite Platonic dogma, that as dead\nmen are made out of living ones, so living men are made out of dead\nones; and he exploded the idea which Virgil seems to have adopted\nfrom Plato, that the purified souls which have been sent into the\nElysian fields (the poetic name for the joys of the blessed) are\nsummoned to the river Lethe, that is, to the oblivion of the past,\n\n          \"That earthward they may pass once more,\n           Remembering not the things before,\n           And with a blind propension yearn\n           To fleshly bodies to return.\"[431]\n\nThis found no favour with Porphyry, and very justly; for it is indeed\nfoolish to believe that souls should desire to return from that\nlife, which cannot be very blessed unless by the assurance of its\npermanence, and to come back into this life, and to the pollution\nof corruptible bodies, as if the result of perfect purification\nwere only to make defilement desirable. For if perfect purification\neffects the oblivion of all evils, and the oblivion of evils creates\na desire for a body in which the soul may again be entangled with\nevils, then the supreme felicity will be the cause of infelicity, and\nthe perfection of wisdom the cause of foolishness, and the purest\ncleansing the cause of defilement. And, however long the blessedness\nof the soul last, it cannot be founded on truth, if, in order to\nbe blessed, it must be deceived. For it cannot be blessed unless\nit be free from fear. But, to be free from fear, it must be under\nthe _false_ impression that it shall be always blessed,--the false\nimpression, for it is destined to be also at some time miserable.\nHow, then, shall the soul rejoice in truth, whose joy is founded on\nfalsehood? Porphyry saw this, and therefore said that the purified\nsoul returns to the Father, that it may never more be entangled in\nthe polluting contact with evil. The opinion, therefore, of some\nPlatonists, that there is a necessary revolution carrying souls away\nand bringing them round again to the same things, is false. But, were\nit true, what were the advantage of knowing it? Would the Platonists\npresume to allege their superiority to us, because we were in this\nlife ignorant of what they themselves were doomed to be ignorant of\nwhen perfected in purity and wisdom in another and better life, and\nwhich they must be ignorant of if they are to be blessed? If it were\nmost absurd and foolish to say so, then certainly we must prefer\nPorphyry's opinion to the idea of a circulation of souls through\nconstantly alternating happiness and misery. And if this is just,\nhere is a Platonist emending Plato, here is a man who saw what Plato\ndid not see, and who did not shrink from correcting so illustrious a\nmaster, but preferred truth to Plato.\n\n\n    31. _Against the arguments on which the Platonists ground their\n        assertion that the human soul is co-eternal with God._\n\nWhy, then, do we not rather believe the divinity in those matters,\nwhich human talent cannot fathom? Why do we not credit the assertion\nof divinity, that the soul is not co-eternal with God, but is\ncreated, and once was not? For the Platonists seemed to themselves to\nallege an adequate reason for their rejection of this doctrine, when\nthey affirmed that nothing could be everlasting which had not always\nexisted. Plato, however, in writing concerning the world and the gods\nin it, whom the Supreme made, most expressly states that they had\na beginning and yet would have no end, but, by the sovereign will\nof the Creator, would endure eternally. But, by way of interpreting\nthis, the Platonists have discovered that he meant a beginning,\nnot of time, but of cause. \"For as if a foot,\" they say, \"had been\nalways from eternity in dust, there would always have been a print\nunderneath it; and yet no one would doubt that this print was made\nby the pressure of the foot, nor that, though the one was made by\nthe other, neither was prior to the other; so,\" they say, \"the world\nand the gods created in it have always been, their Creator always\nexisting, and yet they were made.\" If, then, the soul has always\nexisted, are we to say that its wretchedness has always existed?\nFor if there is something in it which was not from eternity, but\nbegan in time, why is it impossible that the soul itself, though not\npreviously existing, should begin to be in time? Its blessedness,\ntoo, which, as he owns, is to be more stable, and indeed endless,\nafter the soul's experience of evils,--this undoubtedly has a\nbeginning in time, and yet is to be always, though previously it\nhad no existence. This whole argumentation, therefore, to establish\nthat nothing can be endless except that which has had no beginning,\nfalls to the ground. For here we find the blessedness of the soul,\nwhich has a beginning, and yet has no end. And, therefore, let the\nincapacity of man give place to the authority of God; and let us\ntake our belief regarding the true religion from the ever-blessed\nspirits, who do not seek for themselves that honour which they\nknow to be due to their God and ours, and who do not command us to\nsacrifice save only to Him, whose sacrifice, as I have often said\nalready, and must often say again, we and they ought together to be,\noffered through that Priest who offered Himself to death a sacrifice\nfor us, in that human nature which He assumed, and according to which\nHe desired to be our Priest.\n\n\n  32. _Of the universal way of the soul's deliverance, which Porphyry\n      did not find because he did not rightly seek it, and which the\n      grace of Christ has alone thrown open._\n\nThis is the religion which possesses the universal way for delivering\nthe soul; for, except by this way, none can be delivered. This is\na kind of royal way, which alone leads to a kingdom which does not\ntotter like all temporal dignities, but stands firm on eternal\nfoundations. And when Porphyry says, towards the end of the first\nbook _De Regressu Anim\u00e6_, that no system of doctrine which furnishes\nthe universal way for delivering the soul has as yet been received,\neither from the truest philosophy, or from the ideas and practices\nof the Indians, or from the reasoning[432] of the Chald\u00e6ans, or from\nany source whatever, and that no historical reading had made him\nacquainted with that way, he manifestly acknowledges that there is\nsuch a way, but that as yet he was not acquainted with it. Nothing of\nall that he had so laboriously learned concerning the deliverance of\nthe soul, nothing of all that he seemed to others, if not to himself,\nto know and believe, satisfied him. For he perceived that there was\nstill wanting a commanding authority which it might be right to\nfollow in a matter of such importance. And when he says that he had\nnot learned from any truest philosophy a system which possessed the\nuniversal way of the soul's deliverance, he shows plainly enough,\nas it seems to me, either that the philosophy of which he was a\ndisciple was not the truest, or that it did not comprehend such\na way. And how can that be the truest philosophy which does not\npossess this way? For what else is the universal way of the soul's\ndeliverance than that by which all souls universally are delivered,\nand without which, therefore, no soul is delivered? And when he says,\nin addition, \"or from the ideas and practices of the Indians, or from\nthe reasoning of the Chald\u00e6ans, or from any source whatever,\" he\ndeclares in the most unequivocal language that this universal way of\nthe soul's deliverance was not embraced in what he had learned either\nfrom the Indians or the Chald\u00e6ans; and yet he could not forbear\nstating that it was from the Chald\u00e6ans he had derived these divine\noracles of which he makes such frequent mention. What, therefore,\ndoes he mean by this universal way of the soul's deliverance, which\nhad not yet been made known by any truest philosophy, or by the\ndoctrinal systems of those nations which were considered to have\ngreat insight in things divine, because they indulged more freely\nin a curious and fanciful science and worship of angels? What is\nthis universal way of which he acknowledges his ignorance, if not\na way which does not belong to one nation as its special property,\nbut is common to all, and divinely bestowed? Porphyry, a man of no\nmediocre abilities, does not question that such a way exists; for he\nbelieves that Divine Providence could not have left men destitute of\nthis universal way of delivering the soul. For he does not say that\nthis way does not exist, but that this great boon and assistance has\nnot yet been discovered, and has not come to his knowledge. And no\nwonder; for Porphyry lived in an age when this universal way of the\nsoul's deliverance,--in other words, the Christian religion,--was\nexposed to the persecutions of idolaters and demon-worshippers, and\nearthly rulers,[433] that the number of martyrs or witnesses for the\ntruth might be completed and consecrated, and that by them proof\nmight be given that we must endure all bodily sufferings in the cause\nof the holy faith, and for the commendation of the truth. Porphyry,\nbeing a witness of these persecutions, concluded that this way was\ndestined to a speedy extinction, and that it, therefore, was not\nthe universal way of the soul's deliverance, and did not see that\nthe very thing that thus moved him, and deterred him from becoming\na Christian, contributed to the confirmation and more effectual\ncommendation of our religion.\n\nThis, then, is the universal way of the soul's deliverance, the way\nthat is granted by the divine compassion to the nations universally.\nAnd no nation to which the knowledge of it has already come, or may\nhereafter come, ought to demand, Why so soon? or, Why so late?--for\nthe design of Him who sends it is impenetrable by human capacity. This\nwas felt by Porphyry when he confined himself to saying that this gift\nof God was not yet received, and had not yet come to his knowledge.\nFor, though this was so, he did not on that account pronounce that the\nway itself had no existence. This, I say, is the universal way for\nthe deliverance of believers, concerning which the faithful Abraham\nreceived the divine assurance, \"In thy seed shall all nations be\nblessed.\"[434] He, indeed, was by birth a Chald\u00e6an; but, that he might\nreceive these great promises, and that there might be propagated from\nhim a seed \"disposed by angels in the hand of a Mediator,\"[435] in whom\nthis universal way, thrown open to all nations for the deliverance\nof the soul, might be found, he was ordered to leave his country,\nand kindred, and father's house. Then was he himself, first of all,\ndelivered from the Chald\u00e6an superstitions, and by his obedience\nworshipped the one true God, whose promises he faithfully trusted.\nThis is the universal way, of which it is said in holy prophecy, \"God\nbe merciful unto us, and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon\nus; that Thy way may be known upon earth, Thy saving health among all\nnations.\"[436] And hence, when our Saviour, so long after, had taken\nflesh of the seed of Abraham, He says of Himself, \"I am the way, the\ntruth, and the life.\"[437] This is the universal way, of which so long\nbefore it had been predicted, \"And it shall come to pass in the last\ndays, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the\ntop of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all\nnations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye,\nand let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God\nof Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His\npaths: for out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the\nLord from Jerusalem.\"[438] This way, therefore, is not the property\nof one, but of all nations. The law and the word of the Lord did not\nremain in Zion and Jerusalem, but issued thence to be universally\ndiffused. And therefore the Mediator Himself, after His resurrection,\nsays to His alarmed disciples, \"These are the words which I spake\nunto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled\nwhich were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in\nthe Psalms, concerning me. Then opened He their understandings that\nthey might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is\nwritten, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the\ndead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be\npreached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.\"[439]\nThis is the universal way of the soul's deliverance, which the holy\nangels and the holy prophets formerly disclosed where they could\namong the few men who found the grace of God, and especially in the\nHebrew nation, whose commonwealth was, as it were, consecrated to\nprefigure and fore-announce the city of God which was to be gathered\nfrom all nations, by their tabernacle, and temple, and priesthood,\nand sacrifices. In some explicit statements, and in many obscure\nforeshadowings, this way was declared; but latterly came the Mediator\nHimself in the flesh, and His blessed apostles, revealing how the grace\nof the New Testament more openly explained what had been obscurely\nhinted to preceding generations, in conformity with the relation of the\nages of the human race, and as it pleased God in His wisdom to appoint,\nwho also bore them witness with signs and miracles, some of which I\nhave cited above. For not only were there visions of angels, and words\nheard from those heavenly ministrants, but also men of God, armed with\nthe word of simple piety, cast out unclean spirits from the bodies and\nsenses of men, and healed deformities and sicknesses; the wild beasts\nof earth and sea, the birds of air, inanimate things, the elements,\nthe stars, obeyed their divine commands; the powers of hell gave way\nbefore them, the dead were restored to life. I say nothing of the\nmiracles peculiar and proper to the Saviour's own person, especially\nthe nativity and the resurrection; in the one of which He wrought only\nthe mystery of a virgin maternity, while in the other He furnished an\ninstance of the resurrection which all shall at last experience. This\nway purifies the whole man, and prepares the mortal in all his parts\nfor immortality. For, to prevent us from seeking for one purgation for\nthe part which Porphyry calls intellectual, and another for the part he\ncalls spiritual, and another for the body itself, our most mighty and\ntruthful Purifier and Saviour assumed the whole human nature. Except by\nthis way, which has been present among men both during the period of\nthe promises and of the proclamation of their fulfilment, no man has\nbeen delivered, no man is delivered, no man shall be delivered.\n\nAs to Porphyry's statement that the universal way of the soul's\ndeliverance had not yet come to his knowledge by any acquaintance he\nhad with history, I would ask, what more remarkable history can be\nfound than that which has taken possession of the whole world by its\nauthoritative voice? or what more trustworthy than that which narrates\npast events, and predicts the future with equal clearness, and in the\nunfulfilled predictions of which we are constrained to believe by those\nthat are already fulfilled? For neither Porphyry nor any Platonists\ncan despise divination and prediction, even of things that pertain to\nthis life and earthly matters, though they justly despise ordinary\nsoothsaying and the divination that is connected with magical arts.\nThey deny that these are the predictions of great men, or are to be\nconsidered important, and they are right; for they are founded, either\non the foresight of subsidiary causes, as to a professional eye much of\nthe course of a disease is foreseen by certain premonitory symptoms,\nor the unclean demons predict what they have resolved to do, that they\nmay thus work upon the thoughts and desires of the wicked with an\nappearance of authority, and incline human frailty to imitate their\nimpure actions. It is not such things that the saints who walk in the\nuniversal way care to predict as important, although, for the purpose\nof commending the faith, they knew and often predicted even such things\nas could not be detected by human observation, nor be readily verified\nby experience. But there were other truly important and divine events\nwhich they predicted, in so far as it was given them to know the will\nof God. For the incarnation of Christ, and all those important marvels\nthat were accomplished in Him, and done in His name; the repentance\nof men and the conversion of their wills to God; the remission of\nsins, the grace of righteousness, the faith of the pious, and the\nmultitudes in all parts of the world who believe in the true divinity;\nthe overthrow of idolatry and demon worship, and the testing of the\nfaithful by trials; the purification of those who persevered, and their\ndeliverance from all evil; the day of judgment, the resurrection of\nthe dead, the eternal damnation of the community of the ungodly, and\nthe eternal kingdom of the most glorious city of God, ever-blessed\nin the enjoyment of the vision of God,--these things were predicted\nand promised in the Scriptures of this way; and of these we see so\nmany fulfilled, that we justly and piously trust that the rest will\nalso come to pass. As for those who do not believe, and consequently\ndo not understand, that this is the way which leads straight to the\nvision of God and to eternal fellowship with Him, according to the true\npredictions and statements of the Holy Scriptures, they may storm at\nour position, but they cannot storm it.\n\nAnd therefore, in these ten books, though not meeting, I dare say,\nthe expectation of some, yet I have, as the true God and Lord has\nvouchsafed to aid me, satisfied the desire of certain persons, by\nrefuting the objections of the ungodly, who prefer their own gods to\nthe Founder of the holy city, about which we undertook to speak. Of\nthese ten books, the first five were directed against those who think\nwe should worship the gods for the sake of the blessings of this\nlife, and the second five against those who think we should worship\nthem for the sake of the life which is to be after death. And now, in\nfulfilment of the promise I made in the first book, I shall go on to\nsay, as God shall aid me, what I think needs to be said regarding the\norigin, history, and deserved ends of the two cities, which, as already\nremarked, are in this world commingled and implicated with one another.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[364] Rom. i. 21.\n\n[365] Eph. vi. 5.\n\n[366] Namely, \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1: comp. _Qu\u00e6st. in Exod._ 94; _Qu\u00e6st. in Gen._\n21; _Contra Faustum_, 15, 9, etc.\n\n[367] Agricol\u00e6, coloni, incol\u00e6.\n\n[368] Virgil, _Eneid_, i. 12.\n\n[369] 2 Chron. xxx. 9; Eccl. xi. 13; Judith vii. 20.\n\n[370] Ps. lxxxii. 6.\n\n[371] John i. 6-9.\n\n[372] _Ibid._ 16.\n\n[373] Augustine here remarks, in a clause that cannot be given in\nEnglish, that the word _religio_ is derived from _religere_.--So\nCicero, _De Nat. Deor._ ii. 28.\n\n[374] Matt. xxii. 37-40.\n\n[375] Ps. lxxiii. 28.\n\n[376] Ex. xxii. 20.\n\n[377] Ps. xvi. 2.\n\n[378] Ps. li. 16, 17.\n\n[379] Ps. l. 12, 13.\n\n[380] Ps. l. 14, 15.\n\n[381] Micah vi. 6-8.\n\n[382] Heb. xiii. 16.\n\n[383] Hos. vi. 6.\n\n[384] Matt. xxii. 40.\n\n[385] On the service rendered to the Church by this definition, see\nWaterland's Works, v. 124.\n\n[386] Literally, a sacred action.\n\n[387] Ecclus. xxx. 24.\n\n[388] Rom. vi. 13.\n\n[389] Rom. xii. 1.\n\n[390] Rom. xii. 2.\n\n[391] Ps. lxxiii. 28.\n\n[392] Rom. xii. 3-6.\n\n[393] Ps. lxxxvii. 3.\n\n[394] Ex. xxii. 20.\n\n[395] Gen. xviii. 18.\n\n[396] Gen. xv. 17. In his _Retractations_, ii. 43, Augustine says\nthat he should not have spoken of this as miraculous, because it was\nan appearance seen in sleep.\n\n[397] Gen. xviii.\n\n[398] _Goetia._\n\n[399] 2 Cor. xi. 14.\n\n[400] Virgil, _Georg._ iv. 411.\n\n[401] Ex. xxxiii. 13.\n\n[402] Plotin. _Ennead._ III. ii. 13.\n\n[403] Matt. vi. 28-30.\n\n[404] Acts vii. 53.\n\n[405] _Ennead._ I. vi. 7.\n\n[406] Meaning, officious meddlers.\n\n[407] _Pharsal._ vi. 503.\n\n[408] Ps. lxxiii. 28.\n\n[409] _\u00c6neid_, vii. 310.\n\n[410] _\u00c6neid_, iii. 438, 439.\n\n[411] _Teletis._\n\n[412] The Platonists of the Alexandrian and Athenian schools,\nfrom Plotinus to Proclus, are at one in recognising in God three\nprinciples or hypostases: 1st, the One or the Good, which is the\nFather; 2d, the Intelligence or Word, which is the Son; 3d, the Soul,\nwhich is the universal principle of life. But as to the nature and\norder of these hypostases, the Alexandrians are no longer at one with\nthe school of Athens. On the very subtle differences between the\nTrinity of Plotinus and that of Porphyry, consult M. Jules Simon, ii.\n110, and M. Vacherot, ii. 37.--SAISSET.\n\n[413] See below, c. 28.\n\n[414] _Ennead._ v. 1.\n\n[415] John i. 14.\n\n[416] John vi. 60-64.\n\n[417] John viii. 25; or \"the beginning,\" following a different\nreading from ours.\n\n[418] Ps. lxxiii. 28.\n\n[419] Ps. lxxxiv. 2.\n\n[420] Matt. xxiii. 26.\n\n[421] Rom. viii. 24, 25.\n\n[422] See above, c. 9.\n\n[423] Virgil, _Eclog._ iv. 13, 14.\n\n[424] Isa. xxix. 14.\n\n[425] 1 Cor. i. 19-25.\n\n[426] According to another reading, \"You might have seen it to be,\"\netc.\n\n[427] John i. 1-5.\n\n[428] John i. 14.\n\n[429] Comp. Euseb. _Pr\u00e6p. Evan._ xiii. 16.\n\n[430] _Ennead._ iii. 4. 2.\n\n[431] _\u00c6neid_, vi. 750, 751.\n\n[432] _Inductio._\n\n[433] Namely, under Diocletian and Maximian.\n\n[434] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[435] Gal. iii. 19.\n\n[436] Ps. lxvii. 1, 2.\n\n[437] John xiv. 6.\n\n[438] Isa. ii. 2, 3.\n\n[439] Luke xxiv. 44-47.\n\n\n\n\n                            BOOK ELEVENTH.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  HERE BEGINS THE SECOND PART[440] OF THIS WORK, WHICH TREATS OF\n      THE ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND DESTINIES OF THE TWO CITIES, THE\n      EARTHLY AND THE HEAVENLY. IN THE FIRST PLACE, AUGUSTINE SHOWS\n      IN THIS BOOK HOW THE TWO CITIES WERE FORMED ORIGINALLY, BY THE\n      SEPARATION OF THE GOOD AND BAD ANGELS; AND TAKES OCCASION TO\n      TREAT OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, AS IT IS DESCRIBED IN HOLY\n      SCRIPTURE IN THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS.\n\n\n 1. _Of this part of the work, wherein we begin to explain the origin\n                      and end of the two cities._\n\nThe city of God we speak of is the same to which testimony is borne\nby that Scripture, which excels all the writings of all nations\nby its divine authority, and has brought under its influence all\nkinds of minds, and this not by a casual intellectual movement, but\nobviously by an express providential arrangement. For there it is\nwritten, \"Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God.\"[441]\nAnd in another psalm we read, \"Great is the Lord, and greatly to be\npraised in the city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness,\nincreasing the joy of the whole earth.\"[442] And, a little after, in\nthe same psalm, \"As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the\nLord of hosts, in the city of our God. God has established it for\never.\" And in another, \"There is a river the streams whereof shall\nmake glad the city of our God, the holy place of the tabernacles\nof the Most High. God is in the midst of her, she shall not be\nmoved.\"[443] From these and similar testimonies, all of which it\nwere tedious to cite, we have learned that there is a city of God,\nand its Founder has inspired us with a love which makes us covet its\ncitizenship. To this Founder of the holy city the citizens of the\nearthly city prefer their own gods, not knowing that He is the God\nof gods, not of false, _i.e._ of impious and proud gods, who, being\ndeprived of His unchangeable and freely communicated light, and so\nreduced to a kind of poverty-stricken power, eagerly grasp at their\nown private privileges, and seek divine honours from their deluded\nsubjects; but of the pious and holy gods, who are better pleased to\nsubmit themselves to one, than to subject many to themselves, and\nwho would rather worship God than be worshipped as God. But to the\nenemies of this city we have replied in the ten preceding books,\naccording to our ability and the help afforded by our Lord and King.\nNow, recognising what is expected of me, and not unmindful of my\npromise, and relying, too, on the same succour, I will endeavour to\ntreat of the origin, and progress, and deserved destinies of the two\ncities (the earthly and the heavenly, to wit), which, as we said, are\nin this present world commingled, and as it were entangled together.\nAnd, first, I will explain how the foundations of these two cities\nwere originally laid, in the difference that arose among the angels.\n\n\n     2. _Of the knowledge of God, to which no man can attain save\n   through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus._\n\nIt is a great and very rare thing for a man, after he has\ncontemplated the whole creation, corporeal and incorporeal, and has\ndiscerned its mutability, to pass beyond it, and, by the continued\nsoaring of his mind, to attain to the unchangeable substance of God,\nand, in that height of contemplation, to learn from God Himself that\nnone but He has made all that is not of the divine essence. For God\nspeaks with a man not by means of some audible creature dinning in\nhis ears, so that atmospheric vibrations connect Him that makes with\nhim that hears the sound, nor even by means of a spiritual being\nwith the semblance of a body, such as we see in dreams or similar\nstates; for even in this case He speaks as if to the ears of the\nbody, because it is by means of the semblance of a body He speaks,\nand with the appearance of a real interval of space,--for visions are\nexact representations of bodily objects. Not by these, then, does God\nspeak, but by the truth itself, if any one is prepared to hear with\nthe mind rather than with the body. For He speaks to that part of\nman which is better than all else that is in him, and than which God\nHimself alone is better. For since man is most properly understood\n(or, if that cannot be, then, at least, _believed_) to be made in\nGod's image, no doubt it is that part of him by which he rises above\nthose lower parts he has in common with the beasts, which brings him\nnearer to the Supreme. But since the mind itself, though naturally\ncapable of reason and intelligence, is disabled by besotting and\ninveterate vices not merely from delighting and abiding in, but even\nfrom tolerating His unchangeable light, until it has been gradually\nhealed, and renewed, and made capable of such felicity, it had, in\nthe first place, to be impregnated with faith, and so purified. And\nthat in this faith it might advance the more confidently towards the\ntruth, the truth itself, God, God's Son, assuming humanity without\ndestroying His divinity,[444] established and founded this faith,\nthat there might be a way for man to man's God through a God-man. For\nthis is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. For\nit is as man that He is the Mediator and the Way. Since, if the way\nlieth between him who goes, and the place whither he goes, there is\nhope of his reaching it; but if there be no way, or if he know not\nwhere it is, what boots it to know whither he should go? Now the only\nway that is infallibly secured against all mistakes, is when the very\nsame person is at once God and man, God our end, man our way.[445]\n\n\n   3. _Of the authority of the canonical Scriptures composed by the\n                            Divine Spirit._\n\nThis Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient, first by\nthe prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles,\nhas besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical,\nwhich has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all\nmatters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know\nof ourselves. For if we attain the knowledge of present objects by\nthe testimony of our own senses,[446] whether internal or external,\nthen, regarding objects remote from our own senses, we need others\nto bring their testimony, since we cannot know them by our own, and\nwe credit the persons to whom the objects have been or are sensibly\npresent. Accordingly, as in the case of visible objects which we have\nnot seen, we trust those who have, (and likewise with all sensible\nobjects,) so in the case of things which are perceived[447] by the\nmind and spirit, _i.e._ which are remote from our own interior\nsense, it behoves us to trust those who have seen them set in that\nincorporeal light, or abidingly contemplate them.\n\n\n  4. _That the world is neither without beginning, nor yet created\n      by a new decree of God, by which He afterwards willed what He\n      had not before willed._\n\nOf all visible things, the world is the greatest; of all invisible,\nthe greatest is God. But, that the world is, we see; that God is, we\nbelieve. That God made the world, we can believe from no one more\nsafely than from God Himself. But where have we heard Him? Nowhere\nmore distinctly than in the Holy Scriptures, where His prophet said,\n\"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.\"[448] Was\nthe prophet present when God made the heavens and the earth? No; but\nthe wisdom of God, by whom all things were made, was there,[449] and\nwisdom insinuates itself into holy souls, and makes them the friends\nof God and His prophets, and noiselessly informs them of His works.\nThey are taught also by the angels of God, who always behold the face\nof the Father,[450] and announce His will to whom it befits. Of these\nprophets was he who said and wrote, \"In the beginning God created the\nheavens and the earth.\" And so fit a witness was he of God, that the\nsame Spirit of God, who revealed these things to him, enabled him also\nso long before to predict that our faith also would be forthcoming.\n\nBut why did God choose then to create the heavens and earth which\nup to that time He had not made?[451] If they who put this question\nwish to make out that the world is eternal and without beginning, and\nthat consequently it has not been made by God, they are strangely\ndeceived, and rave in the incurable madness of impiety. For, though\nthe voices of the prophets were silent, the world itself, by its\nwell-ordered changes and movements, and by the fair appearance of\nall visible things, bears a testimony of its own, both that it has\nbeen created, and also that it could not have been created save by\nGod, whose greatness and beauty are unutterable and invisible. As\nfor those[452] who own, indeed, that it was made by God, and yet\nascribe to it not a temporal but only a creational beginning, so\nthat in some scarcely intelligible way the world should always have\nexisted a created world, they make an assertion which seems to them\nto defend God from the charge of arbitrary hastiness, or of suddenly\nconceiving the idea of creating the world as a quite new idea, or\nof casually changing His will, though He be unchangeable. But I do\nnot see how this supposition of theirs can stand in other respects,\nand chiefly in respect of the soul; for if they contend that it is\nco-eternal with God, they will be quite at a loss to explain whence\nthere has accrued to it new misery, which through a previous eternity\nhad not existed. For if they said that its happiness and misery\nceaselessly alternate, they must say, further, that this alternation\nwill continue for ever; whence will result this absurdity, that,\nthough the soul is called blessed, it is not so in this, that it\nforesees its own misery and disgrace. And yet, if it does not foresee\nit, and supposes that it will be neither disgraced nor wretched, but\nalways blessed, then it is blessed because it is deceived; and a more\nfoolish statement one cannot make. But if their idea is that the\nsoul's misery has alternated with its bliss during the ages of the\npast eternity, but that now, when once the soul has been set free,\nit will return henceforth no more to misery, they are nevertheless\nof opinion that it has never been truly blessed before, but begins\nat last to enjoy a new and uncertain happiness; that is to say,\nthey must acknowledge that some new thing, and that an important\nand signal thing, happens to the soul which never in a whole past\neternity happened it before. And if they deny that God's eternal\npurpose included this new experience of the soul, they deny that He\nis the Author of its blessedness, which is unspeakable impiety.\nIf, on the other hand, they say that the future blessedness of the\nsoul is the result of a new decree of God, how will they show that\nGod is not chargeable with that mutability which displeases them?\nFurther, if they acknowledge that it was created in time, but will\nnever perish in time,--that it has, like number,[453] a beginning\nbut no end,--and that, therefore, having once made trial of misery,\nand been delivered from it, it will never again return thereto, they\nwill certainly admit that this takes place without any violation of\nthe immutable counsel of God. Let them, then, in like manner believe\nregarding the world that it too could be made in time, and yet that\nGod, in making it, did not alter His eternal design.\n\n\n   5. _That we ought not to seek to comprehend the infinite ages of\n       time before the world, nor the infinite realms of space._\n\nNext, we must see what reply can be made to those who agree that God\nis the Creator of the world, but have difficulties about the time of\nits creation, and what reply, also, they can make to difficulties\nwe might raise about the place of its creation. For, as they demand\nwhy the world was created then and no sooner, we may ask why it\nwas created just here where it is, and not elsewhere. For if they\nimagine infinite spaces of time before the world, during which God\ncould not have been idle, in like manner they may conceive outside\nthe world infinite realms of space, in which, if any one says that\nthe Omnipotent cannot hold His hand from working, will it not follow\nthat they must adopt Epicurus' dream of innumerable worlds? with\nthis difference only, that he asserts that they are formed and\ndestroyed by the fortuitous movements of atoms, while they will hold\nthat they are made by God's hand, if they maintain that, throughout\nthe boundless immensity of space, stretching interminably in every\ndirection round the world, God cannot rest, and that the worlds which\nthey suppose Him to make cannot be destroyed. For here the question\nis with those who, with ourselves, believe that God is spiritual,\nand the Creator of all existences but Himself. As for others, it\nis a condescension to dispute with them on a religious question,\nfor they have acquired a reputation only among men who pay divine\nhonours to a number of gods, and have become conspicuous among the\nother philosophers for no other reason than that, though they are\nstill far from the truth, they are near it in comparison with the\nrest. While these, then, neither confine in any place, nor limit, nor\ndistribute the divine substance, but, as is worthy of God, own it to\nbe wholly though spiritually present everywhere, will they perchance\nsay that this substance is absent from such immense spaces outside\nthe world, and is occupied in one only, (and that a very little one\ncompared with the infinity beyond,) the one, namely, in which is\nthe world? I think they will not proceed to this absurdity. Since\nthey maintain that there is but one world, of vast material bulk,\nindeed, yet finite, and in its own determinate position, and that\nthis was made by the working of God, let them give the same account\nof God's resting in the infinite times before the world as they\ngive of His resting in the infinite spaces outside of it. And as it\ndoes not follow that God set the world in the very spot it occupies\nand no other by accident rather than by divine reason, although no\nhuman reason can comprehend why it was so set, and though there was\nno merit in the spot chosen to give it the precedence of infinite\nothers, so neither does it follow that we should suppose that God was\nguided by chance when He created the world in that and no earlier\ntime, although previous times had been running by during an infinite\npast, and though there was no difference by which one time could be\nchosen in preference to another. But if they say that the thoughts\nof men are idle when they conceive infinite places, since there is\nno place beside the world, we reply that, by the same showing, it is\nvain to conceive of the past times of God's rest, since there is no\ntime before the world.\n\n\n    6. _That the world and time had both one beginning, and the one\n                    did not anticipate the other._\n\nFor if eternity and time are rightly distinguished by this, that\ntime does not exist without some movement and transition, while in\neternity there is no change, who does not see that there could have\nbeen no time had not some creature been made, which by some motion\ncould give birth to change,--the various parts of which motion and\nchange, as they cannot be simultaneous, succeed one another,--and\nthus, in these shorter or longer intervals of duration, time would\nbegin? Since then, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the\nCreator and Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said to have\ncreated the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unless it be said\nthat prior to the world there was some creature by whose movement\ntime could pass. And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that\nin the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in order that\nit may be understood that He had made nothing previously,--for if He\nhad made anything before the rest, this thing would rather be said\nto have been made \"in the beginning,\"--then assuredly the world was\nmade, not in time, but simultaneously with time. For that which is\nmade in time is made both after and before some time,--after that\nwhich is past, before that which is future. But none could then be\npast, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could\nbe measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in\nthe world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident\nfrom the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the\nmorning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things\nwhich God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of\nGod was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days\nthese were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to\nconceive, and how much more to say!\n\n\n    7. _Of the nature of the first days, which are said to have had\n             morning and evening, before there was a sun._\n\nWe see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the\nsetting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first\nthree days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have\nbeen made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made\nby the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness,\nand called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of\nlight that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and\nmorning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand\nhow it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was\nsome material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the\nworld, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun\nwas afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was\nsignified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of\nwhich the apostle says, \"Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother\nin heaven;\"[454] and in another place, \"For ye are all the children of\nthe light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of\ndarkness.\"[455] Yet in some respects we may appropriately speak of a\nmorning and evening of this day also. For the knowledge of the creature\nis, in comparison of the knowledge of the Creator, but a twilight; and\nso it dawns and breaks into morning when the creature is drawn to the\npraise and love of the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator\nis not forsaken through love of the creature. In fine, Scripture, when\nit would recount those days in order, never mentions the word night.\nIt never says, \"Night was,\" but \"The evening and the morning were the\nfirst day.\" So of the second and the rest. And, indeed, the knowledge\nof created things contemplated by themselves is, so to speak, more\ncolourless than when they are seen in the wisdom of God, as in the art\nby which they were made. Therefore evening is a more suitable figure\nthan night; and yet, as I said, morning returns when the creature\nreturns to the praise and love of the Creator. When it does so in the\nknowledge of itself, that is the first day; when in the knowledge of\nthe firmament, which is the name given to the sky between the waters\nabove and those beneath, that is the second day; when in the knowledge\nof the earth, and the sea, and all things that grow out of the earth,\nthat is the third day; when in the knowledge of the greater and less\nluminaries, and all the stars, that is the fourth day; when in the\nknowledge of all animals that swim in the waters and that fly in the\nair, that is the fifth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that\nlive on the earth, and of man himself, that is the sixth day.[456]\n\n\n  8. _What we are to understand of God's resting on the seventh day,\n                      after the six days' work._\n\nWhen it is said that God rested on the seventh day from all His\nworks, and hallowed it, we are not to conceive of this in a\nchildish fashion, as if work were a toil to God, who \"spake and it\nwas done,\"--spake by the spiritual and eternal, not audible and\ntransitory word. But God's rest signifies the rest of those who rest\nin God, as the joy of a house means the joy of those in the house\nwho rejoice, though not the house, but something else, causes the\njoy. How much more intelligible is such phraseology, then, if the\nhouse itself, by its own beauty, makes the inhabitants joyful! For\nin this case we not only call it joyful by that figure of speech in\nwhich the thing containing is used for the thing contained (as when\nwe say, \"The theatres applaud,\" \"The meadows low,\" meaning that the\nmen in the one applaud, and the oxen in the other low), but also by\nthat figure in which the cause is spoken of as if it were the effect,\nas when a letter is said to be joyful, because it makes its readers\nso. Most appropriately, therefore, the sacred narrative states that\nGod rested, meaning thereby that those rest who are in Him, and whom\nHe makes to rest. And this the prophetic narrative promises also to\nthe men to whom it speaks, and for whom it was written, that they\nthemselves, after those good works which God does in and by them, if\nthey have managed by faith to get near to God in this life, shall\nenjoy in Him eternal rest. This was prefigured to the ancient people\nof God by the rest enjoined in their sabbath law, of which, in its\nown place, I shall speak more at large.\n\n\n  9. _What the Scriptures teach us to believe concerning the creation\n                            of the angels._\n\nAt present, since I have undertaken to treat of the origin of the holy\ncity, and first of the holy angels, who constitute a large part of this\ncity, and indeed the more blessed part, since they have never been\nexpatriated, I will give myself to the task of explaining, by God's\nhelp, and as far as seems suitable, the Scriptures which relate to\nthis point. Where Scripture speaks of the world's creation, it is not\nplainly said whether or when the angels were created; but if mention\nof them is made, it is implicitly under the name of \"heaven,\" when it\nis said, \"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,\"\nor perhaps rather under the name of \"light,\" of which presently. But\nthat they were wholly omitted, I am unable to believe, because it is\nwritten that God on the seventh day rested from all His works which\nHe made; and this very book itself begins, \"In the beginning God\ncreated the heavens and the earth,\" so that before heaven and earth\nGod seems to have made nothing. Since, therefore, He began with the\nheavens and the earth,--and the earth itself, as Scripture adds, was\nat first invisible and formless, light not being as yet made, and\ndarkness covering the face of the deep (that is to say, covering an\nundefined chaos of earth and sea, for where light is not, darkness must\nneeds be),--and then when all things, which are recorded to have been\ncompleted in six days, were created and arranged, how should the angels\nbe omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from which on\nthe seventh day He rested? Yet, though the fact that the angels are the\nwork of God is not omitted here, it is indeed not explicitly mentioned;\nbut elsewhere Holy Scripture asserts it in the clearest manner. For\nin the Hymn of the Three Children in the Furnace it was said, \"O all\nye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord;\"[457] and among these works\nmentioned afterwards in detail, the angels are named. And in the psalm\nit is said, \"Praise ye the Lord from the heavens, praise Him in the\nheights. Praise ye Him, all His angels; praise ye Him, all His hosts.\nPraise ye Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all ye stars of light. Praise\nHim, ye heaven of heavens; and ye waters that be above the heavens.\nLet them praise the name of the Lord; for He commanded, and they\nwere created.\"[458] Here the angels are most expressly and by divine\nauthority said to have been made by God, for of them among the other\nheavenly things it is said, \"He commanded, and they were created.\"\nWho, then, will be bold enough to suggest that the angels were made\nafter the six days' creation? If any one is so foolish, his folly is\ndisposed of by a scripture of like authority, where God says, \"When the\nstars were made, the angels praised me with a loud voice.\"[459] The\nangels therefore existed before the stars; and the stars were made the\nfourth day. Shall we then say that they were made the third day? Far\nfrom it; for we know what was made that day. The earth was separated\nfrom the water, and each element took its own distinct form, and the\nearth produced all that grows on it. On the second day, then? Not even\non this; for on it the firmament was made between the waters above and\nbeneath, and was called \"Heaven,\" in which firmament the stars were\nmade on the fourth day. There is no question, then, that if the angels\nare included in the works of God during these six days, they are that\nlight which was called \"Day,\" and whose unity Scripture signalizes\nby calling that day not the \"first day,\" but \"one day.\"[460] For the\nsecond day, the third, and the rest are not other days; but the same\n\"one\" day is repeated to complete the number six or seven, so that\nthere should be knowledge both of God's works and of His rest. For\nwhen God said, \"Let there be light, and there was light,\" if we are\njustified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels,\nthen certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which\nis the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made,\nand whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being\nillumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light\nand be called \"Day,\" in participation of that unchangeable Light and\nDay which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were\nmade. \"The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the\nworld,\"[461]--this Light lighteth also every pure angel, that he may\nbe light not in himself, but in God; from whom if an angel turn away,\nhe becomes impure, as are all those who are called unclean spirits,\nand are no longer light in the Lord, but darkness in themselves,\nbeing deprived of the participation of Light eternal. For evil has no\npositive nature; but the loss of good has received the name \"evil.\"[462]\n\n\n  10. _Of the simple and unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy\n     Ghost, one God, in whom substance and quality are identical._\n\nThere is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore\nalone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good have all others\nbeen created, but not simple, and therefore not unchangeable.\n\"Created,\" I say,--that is, made, not begotten. For that which is\nbegotten of the simple Good is simple as itself, and the same as\nitself. These two we call the Father and the Son; and both together\nwith the Holy Spirit are one God; and to this Spirit the epithet Holy\nis in Scripture, as it were, appropriated. And He is another than\nthe Father and the Son, for He is neither the Father nor the Son.\nI say \"another,\" not \"another thing,\" because He is equally with\nthem the simple Good, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity\nis one God; and none the less simple because a Trinity. For we do\nnot say that the nature of the good is simple, because the Father\nalone possesses it, or the Son alone, or the Holy Ghost alone; nor\ndo we say, with the Sabellian heretics, that it is only nominally a\nTrinity, and has no real distinction of persons; but we say it is\nsimple, because it is what it has, with the exception of the relation\nof the persons to one another. For, in regard to this relation, it is\ntrue that the Father has a Son, and yet is not Himself the Son; and\nthe Son has a Father, and is not Himself the Father. But, as regards\nHimself, irrespective of relation to the other, each is what He has;\nthus, He is in Himself living, for He has life, and is Himself the\nLife which He has.\n\nIt is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity is\ncalled simple, because it has not anything which it can lose, and\nbecause it is not one thing and its contents another, as a cup and\nthe liquor, or a body and its colour, or the air and the light or\nheat of it, or a mind and its wisdom. For none of these is what it\nhas: the cup is not liquor, nor the body colour, nor the air light\nand heat, nor the mind wisdom. And hence they can be deprived of\nwhat they have, and can be turned or changed into other qualities\nand states, so that the cup may be emptied of the liquid of which\nit is full, the body be discoloured, the air darken, the mind grow\nsilly. The incorruptible body which is promised to the saints in\nthe resurrection cannot, indeed, lose its quality of incorruption,\nbut the bodily substance and the quality of incorruption are not\nthe same thing. For the quality of incorruption resides entire in\neach several part, not greater in one and less in another; for\nno part is more incorruptible than another. The body, indeed, is\nitself greater in whole than in part; and one part of it is larger,\nanother smaller, yet is not the larger more incorruptible than the\nsmaller. The body, then, which is not in each of its parts a whole\nbody, is one thing; incorruptibility, which is throughout complete,\nis another thing;--for every part of the incorruptible body,\nhowever unequal to the rest otherwise, is equally incorrupt. For\nthe hand, _e.g._, is not more incorrupt than the finger because it\nis larger than the finger; so, though finger and hand are unequal,\ntheir incorruptibility is equal. Thus, although incorruptibility is\ninseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance of the body\nis one thing, the quality of incorruption another. And therefore the\nbody is not what it has. The soul itself, too, though it be always\nwise (as it will be eternally when it is redeemed), will be so by\nparticipating in the unchangeable wisdom, which it is not; for though\nthe air be never robbed of the light that is shed abroad in it, it is\nnot on that account the same thing as the light. I do not mean that\nthe soul is air, as has been supposed by some who could not conceive\na spiritual nature;[463] but, with much dissimilarity, the two things\nhave a kind of likeness, which makes it suitable to say that the\nimmaterial soul is illumined with the immaterial light of the simple\nwisdom of God, as the material air is irradiated with material light,\nand that, as the air, when deprived of this light, grows dark, (for\nmaterial darkness is nothing else than air wanting light,[464]) so\nthe soul, deprived of the light of wisdom, grows dark.\n\nAccording to this, then, those things which are essentially and truly\ndivine are called simple, because in them quality and substance\nare identical, and because they are divine, or wise, or blessed in\nthemselves, and without extraneous supplement. In Holy Scripture, it\nis true, the Spirit of wisdom is called \"manifold\"[465] because it\ncontains many things in it; but what it contains it also is, and it\nbeing one is all these things. For neither are there many wisdoms,\nbut one, in which are untold and infinite treasures of things\nintellectual, wherein are all invisible and unchangeable reasons of\nthings visible and changeable which were created by it.[466] For God\nmade nothing unwittingly; not even a human workman can be said to do\nso. But if He knew all that He made, He made only those things which\nHe had known. Whence flows a very striking but true conclusion, that\nthis world could not be known to us unless it existed, but could not\nhave existed unless it had been known to God.\n\n\n  11. _Whether the angels that fell partook of the blessedness which\n the holy angels have always enjoyed from the time of their creation._\n\nAnd since these things are so, those spirits whom we call angels were\nnever at any time or in any way darkness, but, as soon as they were\nmade, were made light; yet they were not so created in order that\nthey might exist and live in any way whatever, but were enlightened\nthat they might live wisely and blessedly. Some of them, having\nturned away from this light, have not won this wise and blessed life,\nwhich is certainly eternal, and accompanied with the sure confidence\nof its eternity; but they have still the life of reason, though\ndarkened with folly, and this they cannot lose, even if they would.\nBut who can determine to what extent they were partakers of that\nwisdom before they fell? And how shall we say that they participated\nin it equally with those who through it are truly and fully blessed,\nresting in a true certainty of eternal felicity? For if they had\nequally participated in this true knowledge, then the evil angels\nwould have remained eternally blessed equally with the good, because\nthey were equally expectant of it. For, though a life be never so\nlong, it cannot be truly called eternal if it is destined to have\nan end; for it is called life inasmuch as it is lived, but eternal\nbecause it has no end. Wherefore, although everything eternal is not\ntherefore blessed (for hell-fire is eternal), yet if no life can be\ntruly and perfectly blessed except it be eternal, the life of these\nangels was not blessed, for it was doomed to end, and therefore not\neternal, whether they knew it or not. In the one case fear, in the\nother ignorance, prevented them from being blessed. And even if\ntheir ignorance was not so great as to breed in them a wholly false\nexpectation, but left them wavering in uncertainty whether their\ngood would be eternal or would some time terminate, this very doubt\nconcerning so grand a destiny was incompatible with the plenitude\nof blessedness which we believe the holy angels enjoyed. For we do\nnot so narrow and restrict the application of the term \"blessedness\"\nas to apply it to God only,[467] though doubtless He is so truly\nblessed that greater blessedness cannot be; and, in comparison of His\nblessedness, what is that of the angels, though, according to their\ncapacity, they be perfectly blessed?\n\n\n  12. _A comparison of the blessedness of the righteous, who have not\n      yet received the divine reward, with that of our first parents\n      in paradise._\n\nAnd the angels are not the only members of the rational and\nintellectual creation whom we call blessed. For who will take upon him\nto deny that those first men in Paradise were blessed previously to\nsin, although they were uncertain how long their blessedness was to\nlast, and whether it would be eternal (and eternal it would have been\nhad they not sinned),--who, I say, will do so, seeing that even now we\nnot unbecomingly call those blessed whom we see leading a righteous\nand holy life in hope of immortality, who have no harrowing remorse of\nconscience, but obtain readily divine remission of the sins of their\npresent infirmity? These, though they are certain that they shall be\nrewarded if they persevere, are not certain that they will persevere.\nFor what man can know that he will persevere to the end in the exercise\nand increase of grace, unless he has been certified by some revelation\nfrom Him who, in His just and secret judgment, while He deceives none,\ninforms few regarding this matter? Accordingly, so far as present\ncomfort goes, the first man in Paradise was more blessed than any just\nman in this insecure state; but as regards the hope of future good,\nevery man who not merely supposes, but certainly knows that he shall\neternally enjoy the most high God in the company of angels, and beyond\nthe reach of ill,--this man, no matter what bodily torments afflict\nhim, is more blessed than was he who, even in that great felicity of\nParadise, was uncertain of his fate.[468]\n\n\n  13. _Whether all the angels were so created in one common state of\n      felicity, that those who fell were not aware that they would\n      fall, and that those who stood received assurance of their own\n      perseverance after the ruin of the fallen._\n\nFrom all this, it will readily occur to any one that the blessedness\nwhich an intelligent being desires as its legitimate object results\nfrom a combination of these two things, namely, that it uninterruptedly\nenjoy the unchangeable good, which is God; and that it be delivered\nfrom all dubiety, and know certainly that it shall eternally abide in\nthe same enjoyment. That it is so with the angels of light we piously\nbelieve; but that the fallen angels, who by their own default lost that\nlight, did not enjoy this blessedness even before they sinned, reason\nbids us conclude. Yet if their life was of any duration before they\nfell, we must allow them a blessedness of some kind, though not that\nwhich is accompanied with foresight. Or, if it seems hard to believe\nthat, when the angels were created, some were created in ignorance\neither of their perseverance or their fall, while others were most\ncertainly assured of the eternity of their felicity,--if it is hard to\nbelieve that they were not all from the beginning on an equal footing,\nuntil these who are now evil did of their own will fall away from the\nlight of goodness, certainly it is much harder to believe that the\nholy angels are now uncertain of their eternal blessedness, and do\nnot know regarding themselves as much as we have been able to gather\nregarding them from the Holy Scriptures. For what catholic Christian\ndoes not know that no new devil will ever arise among the good angels,\nas he knows that this present devil will never again return into\nthe fellowship of the good? For the truth in the gospel promises to\nthe saints and the faithful that they will be equal to the angels of\nGod; and it is also promised them that they will \"go away into life\neternal.\"[469] But if we are certain that we shall never lapse from\neternal felicity, while they are not certain, then we shall not be\ntheir equals, but their superiors. But as the truth never deceives, and\nas we shall be their equals, they must be certain of their blessedness.\nAnd because the evil angels could not be certain of that, since their\nblessedness was destined to come to an end, it follows either that the\nangels were unequal, or that, if equal, the good angels were assured of\nthe eternity of their blessedness after the perdition of the others;\nunless, possibly, some one may say that the words of the Lord about\nthe devil, \"He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the\ntruth,\"[470] are to be understood as if he was not only a murderer\nfrom the beginning of the human race, when man, whom he could kill by\nhis deceit, was made, but also that he did not abide in the truth from\nthe time of his own creation, and was accordingly never blessed with\nthe holy angels, but refused to submit to his Creator, and proudly\nexulted as if in a private lordship of his own, and was thus deceived\nand deceiving. For the dominion of the Almighty cannot be eluded;\nand he who will not piously submit himself to things as they are,\nproudly feigns, and mocks himself with a state of things that does\nnot exist; so that what the blessed Apostle John says thus becomes\nintelligible: \"The devil sinneth from the beginning,\"[471]--that is,\nfrom the time he was created he refused righteousness which none but a\nwill piously subject to God can enjoy. Whoever adopts this opinion at\nleast disagrees with those heretics the Manichees, and with any other\npestilential sect that may suppose that the devil has derived from some\nadverse evil principle a nature proper to himself. These persons are so\nbefooled by error, that, although they acknowledge with ourselves the\nauthority of the gospels, they do not notice that the Lord did not say,\n\"The devil was naturally a stranger to the truth,\" but \"The devil abode\nnot in the truth,\" by which He meant us to understand that he had\nfallen from the truth, in which, if he had abode, he would have become\na partaker of it, and have remained in blessedness along with the holy\nangels.[472]\n\n\n   14. _An explanation of what is said of the devil, that he did not\n        abide in the truth, because the truth was not in him._\n\nMoreover, as if we had been inquiring why the devil did not abide in\nthe truth, our Lord subjoins the reason, saying, \"because the truth\nis not in him.\" Now, it would be in him had he abode in it. But the\nphraseology is unusual. For, as the words stand, \"He abode not in the\ntruth, because the truth is not in him,\" it seems as if the truth's\nnot being in him were the cause of his not abiding in it; whereas his\nnot abiding in the truth is rather the cause of its not being in him.\nThe same form of speech is found in the psalm: \"I have called upon\nThee, for Thou hast heard me, O God,\"[473] where we should expect it\nto be said, Thou hast heard me, O God, for I have called upon Thee.\nBut when he had said, \"I have called,\" then, as if some one were\nseeking proof of this, he demonstrates the effectual earnestness of\nhis prayer by the effect of God's hearing it; as if he had said, The\nproof that I have prayed is that Thou hast heard me.\n\n\n   15. _How we are to understand the words, \"The devil sinneth from\n                           the beginning.\"_\n\nAs for what John says about the devil, \"The devil sinneth from the\nbeginning,\"[474] they[475] who suppose it is meant hereby that the\ndevil was made with a sinful nature, misunderstand it; for if sin be\nnatural, it is not sin at all. And how do they answer the prophetic\nproofs,--either what Isaiah says when he represents the devil under\nthe person of the king of Babylon, \"How art thou fallen, O Lucifer,\nson of the morning!\"[476] or what Ezekiel says, \"Thou hast been in\nEden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering,\"[477]\nwhere it is meant that he was some time without sin; for a little\nafter it is still more explicitly said, \"Thou wast perfect in thy\nways?\" And if these passages cannot well be otherwise interpreted,\nwe must understand by this one also, \"He abode not in the truth,\"\nthat he was once in the truth, but did not remain in it. And from\nthis passage, \"The devil sinneth from the beginning,\" it is not\nto be supposed that he sinned from the beginning of his created\nexistence, but from the beginning of his sin, when by his pride he\nhad once commenced to sin. There is a passage, too, in the Book of\nJob, of which the devil is the subject: \"This is the beginning of the\ncreation of God, which He made to be a sport to His angels,\"[478]\nwhich agrees with the psalm, where it is said, \"There is that\ndragon which Thou hast made to be a sport therein.\"[479] But these\npassages are not to lead us to suppose that the devil was originally\ncreated to be the sport of the angels, but that he was doomed to\nthis punishment after his sin. His beginning, then, is the handiwork\nof God; for there is no nature, even among the least, and lowest,\nand last of the beasts, which was not the work of Him from whom has\nproceeded all measure, all form, all order, without which nothing can\nbe planned or conceived. How much more, then, is this angelic nature,\nwhich surpasses in dignity all else that He has made, the handiwork\nof the Most High!\n\n\n   16. _Of the ranks and differences of the creatures, estimated by\n   their utility, or according to the natural gradations of being._\n\nFor, among those beings which exist, and which are not of God\nthe Creator's essence, those which have life are ranked above\nthose which have none; those that have the power of generation,\nor even of desiring, above those which want this faculty. And,\namong things that have life, the sentient are higher than those\nwhich have no sensation, as animals are ranked above trees. And,\namong the sentient, the intelligent are above those that have not\nintelligence,--men, _e.g._, above cattle. And, among the intelligent,\nthe immortal, such as the angels, above the mortal, such as men.\nThese are the gradations according to the order of nature; but\naccording to the utility each man finds in a thing, there are various\nstandards of value, so that it comes to pass that we prefer some\nthings that have no sensation to some sentient beings. And so strong\nis this preference, that, had we the power, we would abolish the\nlatter from nature altogether, whether in ignorance of the place they\nhold in nature, or, though we know it, sacrificing them to our own\nconvenience. Who, _e.g._, would not rather have bread in his house\nthan mice, gold than fleas? But there is little to wonder at in\nthis, seeing that even when valued by men themselves (whose nature\nis certainly of the highest dignity), more is often given for a\nhorse than for a slave, for a jewel than for a maid. Thus the reason\nof one contemplating nature prompts very different judgments from\nthose dictated by the necessity of the needy, or the desire of the\nvoluptuous; for the former considers what value a thing in itself has\nin the scale of creation, while necessity considers how it meets its\nneed; reason looks for what the mental light will judge to be true,\nwhile pleasure looks for what pleasantly titillates the bodily sense.\nBut of such consequence in rational natures is the weight, so to\nspeak, of will and of love, that though in the order of nature angels\nrank above men, yet, by the scale of justice, good men are of greater\nvalue than bad angels.\n\n\n    17. _That the flaw of wickedness is not nature, but contrary to\n   nature, and has its origin, not in the Creator, but in the will._\n\nIt is with reference to the nature, then, and not to the wickedness\nof the devil, that we are to understand these words, \"This is the\nbeginning of God's handiwork;\"[480] for, without doubt, wickedness\ncan be a flaw or vice[481] only where the nature previously was not\nvitiated. Vice, too, is so contrary to nature, that it cannot but\ndamage it. And therefore departure from God would be no vice, unless\nin a nature whose property it was to abide with God. So that even\nthe wicked will is a strong proof of the goodness of the nature. But\nGod, as He is the supremely good Creator of good natures, so is He of\nevil wills the most just Ruler; so that, while they make an ill use\nof good natures, He makes a good use even of evil wills. Accordingly,\nHe caused the devil (good by God's creation, wicked by his own will)\nto be cast down from his high position, and to become the mockery\nof His angels,--that is, He caused his temptations to benefit those\nwhom he wishes to injure by them. And because God, when He created\nhim, was certainly not ignorant of his future malignity, and foresaw\nthe good which He Himself would bring out of his evil, therefore\nsays the psalm, \"This leviathan whom Thou hast made to be a sport\ntherein,\"[482] that we may see that, even while God in His goodness\ncreated him good, He yet had already foreseen and arranged how He\nwould make use of him when he became wicked.\n\n\n      18. _Of the beauty of the universe, which becomes, by God's\n      ordinance, more brilliant by the opposition of contraries._\n\nFor God would never have created any, I do not say angel, but even\nman, whose future wickedness He foreknew, unless He had equally\nknown to what uses in behalf of the good He could turn him, thus\nembellishing the course of the ages, as it were an exquisite poem\nset off with antitheses. For what are called antitheses are among\nthe most elegant of the ornaments of speech. They might be called in\nLatin \"oppositions,\" or, to speak more accurately, \"contrapositions;\"\nbut this word is not in common use among us,[483] though the Latin,\nand indeed the languages of all nations, avail themselves of the same\nornaments of style. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians the\nApostle Paul also makes a graceful use of antithesis, in that place\nwhere he says, \"By the armour of righteousness on the right hand and\non the left, by honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report:\nas deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying,\nand, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet\nalway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing,\nand yet possessing all things.\"[484] As, then, these oppositions of\ncontraries lend beauty to the language, so the beauty of the course\nof this world is achieved by the opposition of contraries, arranged,\nas it were, by an eloquence not of words, but of things. This is\nquite plainly stated in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, in this way:\n\"Good is set against evil, and life against death: so is the sinner\nagainst the godly. So look upon all the works of the Most High, and\nthese are two and two, one against another.\"[485]\n\n\n     19. _What, seemingly, we are to understand by the words, \"God\n                divided the light from the darkness.\"_\n\nAccordingly, though the obscurity of the divine word has certainly\nthis advantage, that it causes many opinions about the truth to be\nstarted and discussed, each reader seeing some fresh meaning in\nit, yet, whatever is said to be meant by an obscure passage should\nbe either confirmed by the testimony of obvious facts, or should\nbe asserted in other and less ambiguous texts. This obscurity is\nbeneficial, whether the sense of the author is at last reached after\nthe discussion of many other interpretations, or whether, though\nthat sense remain concealed, other truths are brought out by the\ndiscussion of the obscurity. To me it does not seem incongruous with\nthe working of God, if we understand that the angels were created\nwhen that first light was made, and that a separation was made\nbetween the holy and the unclean angels, when, as is said, \"God\ndivided the light from the darkness; and God called the light Day,\nand the darkness He called Night.\" For He alone could make this\ndiscrimination, who was able also, before they fell, to foreknow that\nthey would fall, and that, being deprived of the light of truth, they\nwould abide in the darkness of pride. For, so far as regards the day\nand night, with which we are familiar, He commanded those luminaries\nof heaven that are obvious to our senses to divide between the light\nand the darkness. \"Let there be,\" He says, \"lights in the firmament\nof the heaven, to divide the day from the night;\" and shortly after\nHe says, \"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule\nthe day, and the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also. And\nGod set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the\nearth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the\nlight from the darkness.\"[486] But between that light, which is the\nholy company of the angels spiritually radiant with the illumination\nof the truth, and that opposing darkness, which is the noisome\nfoulness of the spiritual condition of those angels who are turned\naway from the light of righteousness, only He Himself could divide,\nfrom whom their wickedness (not of nature, but of will), while yet it\nwas future, could not be hidden or uncertain.\n\n\n      20. _Of the words which follow the separation of light and\n         darkness, \"And God saw the light that it was good.\"_\n\nThen, we must not pass from this passage of Scripture without noticing\nthat when God said, \"Let there be light, and there was light,\" it was\nimmediately added, \"And God saw the light that it was good.\" No such\nexpression followed the statement that He separated the light from the\ndarkness, and called the light Day and the darkness Night, lest the\nseal of His approval might seem to be set on such darkness, as well as\non the light. For when the darkness was not subject of disapprobation,\nas when it was divided by the heavenly bodies from this light which our\neyes discern, the statement that God saw that it was good is inserted,\nnot before, but after the division is recorded. \"And God set them,\" so\nruns the passage, \"in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon\nthe earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide\nthe light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.\" For He\napproved of both, because both were sinless. But where God said, \"Let\nthere be light, and there was light; and God saw the light that it was\ngood;\" and the narrative goes on, \"and God divided the light from the\ndarkness: and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called\nNight,\" there was not in this place subjoined the statement, \"And God\nsaw that it was good,\" lest both should be designated good, while one\nof them was evil, not by nature, but by its own fault. And therefore,\nin this case, the light alone received the approbation of the Creator,\nwhile the angelic darkness, though it had been ordained, was yet not\napproved.\n\n\n  21. _Of God's eternal and unchangeable knowledge and will, whereby\n      all He has made pleased Him in the eternal design as well as in\n      the actual result._\n\nFor what else is to be understood by that invariable refrain, \"And\nGod saw that it was good,\" than the approval of the work in its\ndesign, which is the wisdom of God? For certainly God did not in the\nactual achievement of the work first learn that it was good, but,\non the contrary, nothing would have been made had it not been first\nknown by Him. While, therefore, He sees that that is good which, had\nHe not seen it before it was made, would never have been made, it\nis plain that He is not discovering, but teaching that it is good.\nPlato, indeed, was bold enough to say that, when the universe was\ncompleted, God was, as it were, elated with joy.[487] And Plato was\nnot so foolish as to mean by this that God was rendered more blessed\nby the novelty of His creation; but he wished thus to indicate that\nthe work now completed met with its Maker's approval, as it had while\nyet in design. It is not as if the knowledge of God were of various\nkinds, knowing in different ways things which as yet are not, things\nwhich are, and things which have been. For not in our fashion does He\nlook forward to what is future, nor at what is present, nor back upon\nwhat is past; but in a manner quite different and far and profoundly\nremote from our way of thinking. For He does not pass from this to\nthat by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute\nunchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the\nfuture, indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no\nlonger are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable\nand eternal presence. Neither does He see in one fashion by the eye,\nin another by the mind, for He is not composed of mind and body; nor\ndoes His present knowledge differ from that which it ever was or\nshall be, for those variations of time, past, present, and future,\nthough they alter our knowledge, do not affect His, \"with whom is\nno variableness, neither shadow of turning.\"[488] Neither is there\nany growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him whose\nspiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For\nas without any movement that time can measure, He Himself moves all\ntemporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time\ncannot measure. And therefore He saw that what He had made was good,\nwhen He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He\nhad not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge\nof it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For\ncertainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His\nknowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished\nworks. Wherefore, if the only object had been to inform us who made\nthe light, it had been enough to say, \"God made the light;\" and if\nfurther information regarding the means by which it was made had been\nintended, it would have sufficed to say, \"And God said, Let there be\nlight, and there was light,\" that we might know not only that God\nhad made the world, but also that He had made it by the word. But\nbecause it was right that three leading truths regarding the creature\nbe intimated to us, viz., who made it, by what means, and why, it is\nwritten, \"God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God\nsaw the light that it was good.\" If, then, we ask who made it, it\nwas \"God.\" If, by what means, He said \"Let it be,\" and it was. If we\nask, why He made it, \"it was good.\" Neither is there any author more\nexcellent than God, nor any skill more efficacious than the word of\nGod, nor any cause better than that good might be created by the good\nGod. This also Plato has assigned as the most sufficient reason for\nthe creation of the world, that good works might be made by a good\nGod;[489] whether he read this passage, or, perhaps, was informed of\nthese things by those who had read them, or, by his quick-sighted\ngenius, penetrated to things spiritual and invisible through the\nthings that are created, or was instructed regarding them by those\nwho had discerned them.\n\n\n  22. _Of those who do not approve of certain things which are a part\n      of this good creation of a good Creator, and who think that\n      there is some natural evil._\n\nThis cause, however, of a good creation, namely, the goodness of\nGod,--this cause, I say, so just and fit, which, when piously and\ncarefully weighed, terminates all the controversies of those who\ninquire into the origin of the world, has not been recognised by\nsome heretics,[490] because there are, forsooth, many things, such\nas fire, frost, wild beasts, and so forth, which do not suit but\ninjure this thin-blooded and frail mortality of our flesh, which is\nat present under just punishment. They do not consider how admirable\nthese things are in their own places, how excellent in their own\nnatures, how beautifully adjusted to the rest of creation, and how\nmuch grace they contribute to the universe by their own contributions\nas to a commonwealth; and how serviceable they are even to ourselves,\nif we use them with a knowledge of their fit adaptations,--so that\neven poisons, which are destructive when used injudiciously, become\nwholesome and medicinal when used in conformity with their qualities\nand design; just as, on the other hand, those things which give us\npleasure, such as food, drink, and the light of the sun, are found to\nbe hurtful when immoderately or unseasonably used. And thus divine\nprovidence admonishes us not foolishly to vituperate things, but to\ninvestigate their utility with care; and, where our mental capacity\nor infirmity is at fault, to believe that there is a utility, though\nhidden, as we have experienced that there were other things which\nwe all but failed to discover. For this concealment of the use of\nthings is itself either an exercise of our humility or a levelling\nof our pride; for no nature at all is evil, and this is a name for\nnothing but the want of good. But from things earthly to things\nheavenly, from the visible to the invisible, there are some things\nbetter than others; and for this purpose are they unequal, in order\nthat they might all exist. Now God is in such sort a great worker in\ngreat things, that He is not less in little things,--for these little\nthings are to be measured not by their own greatness (which does\nnot exist), but by the wisdom of their Designer; as, in the visible\nappearance of a man, if one eyebrow be shaved off, how nearly nothing\nis taken from the body, but how much from the beauty!--for that is\nnot constituted by bulk, but by the proportion and arrangement of\nthe members. But we do not greatly wonder that persons, who suppose\nthat some evil nature has been generated and propagated by a kind of\nopposing principle proper to it, refuse to admit that the cause of\nthe creation was this, that the good God produced a good creation.\nFor they believe that He was driven to this enterprise of creation\nby the urgent necessity of repulsing the evil that warred against\nHim, and that He mixed His good nature with the evil for the sake\nof restraining and conquering it; and that this nature of His,\nbeing thus shamefully polluted, and most cruelly oppressed and held\ncaptive, He labours to cleanse and deliver it, and with all His pains\ndoes not wholly succeed; but such part of it as could not be cleansed\nfrom that defilement is to serve as a prison and chain of the\nconquered and incarcerated enemy. The Manich\u00e6ans would not drivel,\nor rather, rave in such a style as this, if they believed the nature\nof God to be, as it is, unchangeable and absolutely incorruptible,\nand subject to no injury; and if, moreover, they held in Christian\nsobriety, that the soul which has shown itself capable of being\naltered for the worse by its own will, and of being corrupted by sin,\nand so, of being deprived of the light of eternal truth,--that this\nsoul, I say, is not a part of God, nor of the same nature as God, but\nis created by Him, and is far different from its Creator.\n\n\n    23. _Of the error in which the doctrine of Origen is involved._\n\nBut it is much more surprising that some even of those who, with\nourselves, believe that there is one only source of all things,\nand that no nature which is not divine can exist unless originated\nby that Creator, have yet refused to accept with a good and simple\nfaith this so good and simple a reason of the world's creation,\nthat a good God made it good; and that the things created, being\ndifferent from God, were inferior to Him, and yet were good, being\ncreated by none other than He. But they say that souls, though not,\nindeed, parts of God, but created by Him, sinned by abandoning God;\nthat, in proportion to their various sins, they merited different\ndegrees of debasement from heaven to earth, and diverse bodies as\nprison-houses; and that this is the world, and this the cause of its\ncreation, not the production of good things, but the restraining\nof evil. Origen is justly blamed for holding this opinion. For in\nthe books which he entitles \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd, that is, _Of origins_, this\nis his sentiment, this his utterance. And I cannot sufficiently\nexpress my astonishment, that a man so erudite and well versed in\necclesiastical literature, should not have observed, in the first\nplace, how opposed this is to the meaning of this authoritative\nScripture, which, in recounting all the works of God, regularly\nadds, \"And God saw that it was good;\" and, when all were completed,\ninserts the words, \"And God saw everything that He had made, and,\nbehold, it was very good.\"[491] Was it not obviously meant to be\nunderstood that there was no other cause of the world's creation than\nthat good creatures should be made by a good God? In this creation,\nhad no one sinned, the world would have been filled and beautified\nwith natures good without exception; and though there is sin, all\nthings are not therefore full of sin, for the great majority of the\nheavenly inhabitants preserve their nature's integrity. And the\nsinful will, though it violated the order of its own nature, did not\non that account escape the laws of God, who justly orders all things\nfor good. For as the beauty of a picture is increased by well-managed\nshadows, so, to the eye that has skill to discern it, the universe is\nbeautified even by sinners, though, considered by themselves, their\ndeformity is a sad blemish.\n\nIn the second place, Origen, and all who think with him, ought to\nhave seen that if it were the true opinion that the world was created\nin order that souls might, for their sins, be accommodated with\nbodies in which they should be shut up as in houses of correction,\nthe more venial sinners receiving lighter and more ethereal bodies,\nwhile the grosser and graver sinners received bodies more crass and\ngrovelling, then it would follow that the devils, who are deepest\nin wickedness, ought, rather than even wicked men, to have earthly\nbodies, since these are the grossest and least ethereal of all. But\nin point of fact, that we might see that the deserts of souls are\nnot to be estimated by the qualities of bodies, the wickedest devil\npossesses an ethereal body, while man, wicked, it is true, but with\na wickedness small and venial in comparison with his, received even\nbefore his sin a body of clay. And what more foolish assertion can\nbe advanced than that God, by this sun of ours, did not design to\nbenefit the material creation, or lend lustre to its loveliness,\nand therefore created one single sun for this single world, but\nthat it so happened that one soul only had so sinned as to deserve\nto be enclosed in such a body as it is? On this principle, if it\nhad chanced that not one, but two, yea, or ten, or a hundred had\nsinned similarly, and with a like degree of guilt, then this world\nwould have one hundred suns. And that such is not the case, is due\nnot to the considerate foresight of the Creator, contriving the\nsafety and beauty of things material, but rather to the fact that\nso fine a quality of sinning was hit upon by only one soul, so that\nit alone has merited such a body. Manifestly persons holding such\nopinions should aim at confining, not souls of which they know not\nwhat they say, but themselves, lest they fall, and deservedly, far\nindeed from the truth. And as to these three answers which I formerly\nrecommended when in the case of any creature the questions are put,\nWho made it? By what means? Why? that it should be replied, God, By\nthe Word, Because it was good,--as to these three answers, it is very\nquestionable whether the Trinity itself is thus mystically indicated,\nthat is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or whether\nthere is some good reason for this acceptation in this passage of\nScripture,--this, I say, is questionable, and one can't be expected\nto explain everything in one volume.\n\n\n    24. _Of the divine Trinity, and the indications of its presence\n                scattered everywhere among its works._\n\nWe believe, we maintain, we faithfully preach, that the Father\nbegat the Word, that is, Wisdom, by which all things were made, the\nonly-begotten Son, one as the Father is one, eternal as the Father\nis eternal, and, equally with the Father, supremely good; and that\nthe Holy Spirit is the Spirit alike of Father and of Son, and is\nHimself consubstantial and co-eternal with both; and that this whole\nis a Trinity by reason of the individuality[492] of the persons, and\none God by reason of the indivisible divine substance, as also one\nAlmighty by reason of the indivisible omnipotence; yet so that, when\nwe inquire regarding each singly, it is said that each is God and\nAlmighty; and, when we speak of all together, it is said that there\nare not three Gods, nor three Almighties, but one God Almighty; so\ngreat is the indivisible unity of these Three, which requires that it\nbe so stated. But, whether the Holy Spirit of the Father, and of the\nSon, who are both good, can be with propriety called the goodness of\nboth, because He is common to both, I do not presume to determine\nhastily. Nevertheless, I would have less hesitation in saying that\nHe is the holiness of both, not as if He were a divine attribute\nmerely, but Himself also the divine substance, and the third person\nin the Trinity. I am the rather emboldened to make this statement,\nbecause, though the Father is a spirit, and the Son a spirit, and the\nFather holy, and the Son holy, yet the third person is distinctively\ncalled the Holy Spirit, as if He were the substantial holiness\nconsubstantial with the other two. But if the divine goodness is\nnothing else than the divine holiness, then certainly it is a\nreasonable studiousness, and not presumptuous intrusion, to inquire\nwhether the same Trinity be not hinted at in an enigmatical mode of\nspeech, by which our inquiry is stimulated, when it is written who\nmade each creature, and by what means, and why. For it is the Father\nof the Word who said, Let there be. And that which was made when He\nspoke was certainly made by means of the Word. And by the words, \"God\nsaw that it was good,\" it is sufficiently intimated that God made\nwhat was made not from any necessity, nor for the sake of supplying\nany want, but solely from His own goodness, _i.e._, because it was\ngood. And this is stated after the creation had taken place, that\nthere might be no doubt that the thing made satisfied the goodness on\naccount of which it was made. And if we are right in understanding\nthat this goodness is the Holy Spirit, then the whole Trinity is\nrevealed to us in the creation. In this, too, is the origin, the\nenlightenment, the blessedness of the holy city which is above among\nthe holy angels. For if we inquire whence it is, God created it; or\nwhence its wisdom, God illumined it; or whence its blessedness, God\nis its bliss. It has its form by subsisting in Him; its enlightenment\nby contemplating Him; its joy by abiding in Him. It is; it sees; it\nloves. In God's eternity is its life; in God's truth its light; in\nGod's goodness its joy.\n\n\n         25. _Of the division of philosophy into three parts._\n\nAs far as one can judge, it is for the same reason that philosophers\nhave aimed at a threefold division of science, or rather, were enabled\nto see that there was a threefold division (for they did not invent,\nbut only discovered it), of which one part is called physical, another\nlogical, the third ethical. The Latin equivalents of these names\nare now naturalized in the writings of many authors, so that these\ndivisions are called natural, rational, and moral, on which I have\ntouched slightly in the eighth book. Not that I would conclude that\nthese philosophers, in this threefold division, had any thought of\na trinity in God, although Plato is said to have been the first to\ndiscover and promulgate this distribution, and he saw that God alone\ncould be the author of nature, the bestower of intelligence, and the\nkindler of love by which life becomes good and blessed. But certain\nit is that, though philosophers disagree both regarding the nature\nof things, and the mode of investigating truth, and of the good to\nwhich all our actions ought to tend, yet in these three great general\nquestions all their intellectual energy is spent. And though there\nbe a confusing diversity of opinion, every man striving to establish\nhis own opinion in regard to each of these questions, yet no one of\nthem all doubts that nature has some cause, science some method, life\nsome end and aim. Then, again, there are three things which every\nartificer must possess if he is to effect anything,--nature, education,\npractice. Nature is to be judged by capacity, education by knowledge,\npractice by its fruit. I am aware that, properly speaking, fruit is\nwhat one enjoys, use [practice] what one uses. And this seems to be\nthe difference between them, that we are said to _enjoy_ that which\nin itself, and irrespective of other ends, delights us; to _use_ that\nwhich we seek for the sake of some end beyond. For which reason the\nthings of time are to be used rather than enjoyed, that we may deserve\nto enjoy things eternal; and not as those perverse creatures who would\nfain enjoy money and use God,--not spending money for God's sake, but\nworshipping God for money's sake. However, in common parlance, we both\nuse fruits and enjoy uses. For we correctly speak of the \"fruits of\nthe field,\" which certainly we all use in the present life. And it was\nin accordance with this usage that I said that there were three things\nto be observed in a man, nature, education, practice. From these the\nphilosophers have elaborated, as I said, the threefold division of\nthat science by which a blessed life is attained: the natural having\nrespect to nature, the rational to education, the moral to practice.\nIf, then, we were ourselves the authors of our nature, we should have\ngenerated knowledge in ourselves, and should not require to reach\nit by education, _i.e._, by learning it from others. Our love, too,\nproceeding from ourselves and returning to us, would suffice to make\nour life blessed, and would stand in need of no extraneous enjoyment.\nBut now, since our nature has God as its requisite author, it is\ncertain that we must have Him for our teacher that we may be wise; Him,\ntoo, to dispense to us spiritual sweetness that we may be blessed.\n\n\n    26. _Of the image of the supreme Trinity, which we find in some\n           sort in human nature even in its present state._\n\nAnd we indeed recognise in ourselves the image of God, that is,\nof the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it be not equal to\nGod, or rather, though it be very far removed from Him,--being\nneither co-eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with\nHim,--is yet nearer to Him in nature than any other of His works,\nand is destined to be yet restored, that it may bear a still closer\nresemblance. For we both are, and know that we are, and delight in\nour being, and our knowledge of it. Moreover, in these three things\nno true-seeming illusion disturbs us; for we do not come into contact\nwith these by some bodily sense, as we perceive the things outside\nof us,--colours, _e.g._, by seeing, sounds by hearing, smells by\nsmelling, tastes by tasting, hard and soft objects by touching,--of\nall which sensible objects it is the images resembling them, but not\nthemselves which we perceive in the mind and hold in the memory, and\nwhich excite us to desire the objects. But, without any delusive\nrepresentation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am,\nand that I know and delight in this. In respect of these truths, I\nam not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians, who say,\nWhat if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am.[493] For he\nwho is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same\ntoken I am. And since I am if I am deceived, how am I deceived in\nbelieving that I am? for it is certain that I am if I am deceived.\nSince, therefore, I, the person deceived, should be, even if I were\ndeceived, certainly I am not deceived in this knowledge that I am.\nAnd, consequently, neither am I deceived in knowing that I know. For,\nas I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know. And when I\nlove these two things, I add to them a certain third thing, namely,\nmy love, which is of equal moment. For neither am I deceived in this,\nthat I love, since in those things which I love I am not deceived;\nthough even if these were false, it would still be true that I\n_loved_ false things. For how could I justly be blamed and prohibited\nfrom loving false things, if it were false that I loved them? But,\nsince they are true and real, who doubts that when they are loved,\nthe love of them is itself true and real? Further, as there is no one\nwho does not wish to be happy, so there is no one who does not wish\nto be. For how can he be happy, if he is nothing?\n\n\n    27. _Of existence, and knowledge of it, and the love of both._\n\nAnd truly the very fact of existing is by some natural spell so\npleasant, that even the wretched are, for no other reason, unwilling\nto perish; and, when they feel that they are wretched, wish not that\nthey themselves be annihilated, but that their misery be so. Take\neven those who, both in their own esteem, and in point of fact, are\nutterly wretched, and who are reckoned so, not only by wise men on\naccount of their folly, but by those who count themselves blessed,\nand who think them wretched because they are poor and destitute,--if\nany one should give these men an immortality, in which their misery\nshould be deathless, and should offer the alternative, that if they\nshrank from existing eternally in the same misery they might be\nannihilated, and exist nowhere at all, nor in any condition, on the\ninstant they would joyfully, nay exultantly, make election to exist\nalways, even in such a condition, rather than not exist at all. The\nwell-known feeling of such men witnesses to this. For when we see\nthat they fear to die, and will rather live in such misfortune than\nend it by death, is it not obvious enough how nature shrinks from\nannihilation? And, accordingly, when they know that they must die,\nthey seek, as a great boon, that this mercy be shown them, that they\nmay a little longer live in the same misery, and delay to end it by\ndeath. And so they indubitably prove with what glad alacrity they\nwould accept immortality, even though it secured to them endless\ndestruction. What! do not even all irrational animals, to whom such\ncalculations are unknown, from the huge dragons down to the least\nworms, all testify that they wish to exist, and therefore shun death\nby every movement in their power? Nay, the very plants and shrubs,\nwhich have no such life as enables them to shun destruction by\nmovements we can see, do not they all seek, in their own fashion,\nto conserve their existence, by rooting themselves more and more\ndeeply in the earth, that so they may draw nourishment, and throw out\nhealthy branches towards the sky? In fine, even the lifeless bodies,\nwhich want not only sensation but seminal life, yet either seek the\nupper air or sink deep, or are balanced in an intermediate position,\nso that they may protect their existence in that situation where they\ncan exist in most accordance with their nature.\n\nAnd how much human nature loves the knowledge of its existence, and\nhow it shrinks from being deceived, will be sufficiently understood\nfrom this fact, that every man prefers to grieve in a sane mind,\nrather than to be glad in madness. And this grand and wonderful\ninstinct belongs to men alone of all animals; for, though some of\nthem have keener eyesight than ourselves for this world's light, they\ncannot attain to that spiritual light with which our mind is somehow\nirradiated, so that we can form right judgments of all things. For\nour power to judge is proportioned to our acceptance of this light.\nNevertheless, the irrational animals, though they have not knowledge,\nhave certainly something resembling knowledge; whereas the other\nmaterial things are said to be sensible, not because they have\nsenses, but because they are the objects of our senses. Yet among\nplants, their nourishment and generation have some resemblance to\nsensible life. However, both these and all material things have their\ncauses hidden in their nature; but their outward forms, which lend\nbeauty to this visible structure of the world, are perceived by our\nsenses, so that they seem to wish to compensate for their own want\nof knowledge by providing us with knowledge. But we perceive them\nby our bodily senses in such a way that we do not judge of them by\nthese senses. For we have another and far superior sense, belonging\nto the inner man, by which we perceive what things are just, and what\nunjust,--just by means of an intelligible idea, unjust by the want of\nit. This sense is aided in its functions neither by the eyesight, nor\nby the orifice of the ear, nor by the air-holes of the nostrils, nor\nby the palate's taste, nor by any bodily touch. By it I am assured\nboth that I am, and that I know this; and these two I love, and in\nthe same manner I am assured that I love them.\n\n\n  28. _Whether we ought to love the love itself with which we love\n      our existence and our knowledge of it, that so we may more\n      nearly resemble the image of the divine Trinity._\n\nWe have said as much as the scope of this work demands regarding\nthese two things, to wit, our existence, and our knowledge of it, and\nhow much they are loved by us, and how there is found even in the\nlower creatures a kind of likeness of these things, and yet with a\ndifference. We have yet to speak of the love wherewith they are loved,\nto determine whether this love itself is loved. And doubtless it is;\nand this is the proof. Because in men who are justly loved, it is\nrather love itself that is loved; for he is not justly called a good\nman who knows what is good, but who loves it. Is it not then obvious\nthat we love in ourselves the very love wherewith we love whatever\ngood we love? For there is also a love wherewith we love that which\nwe ought not to love; and this love is hated by him who loves that\nwherewith he loves what ought to be loved. For it is quite possible\nfor both to exist in one man. And this co-existence is good for a man,\nto the end that this love which conduces to our living well may grow,\nand the other, which leads us to evil may decrease, until our whole\nlife be perfectly healed and transmuted into good. For if we were\nbeasts, we should love the fleshly and sensual life, and this would\nbe our sufficient good; and when it was well with us in respect of\nit, we should seek nothing beyond. In like manner, if we were trees,\nwe could not, indeed, in the strict sense of the word, love anything;\nnevertheless we should seem, as it were, to long for that by which\nwe might become more abundantly and luxuriantly fruitful. If we were\nstones, or waves, or wind, or flame, or anything of that kind, we\nshould want, indeed, both sensation and life, yet should possess a kind\nof attraction towards our own proper position and natural order. For\nthe specific gravity of bodies is, as it were, their love, whether they\nare carried downwards by their weight, or upwards by their levity. For\nthe body is borne by its gravity, as the spirit by love, whithersoever\nit is borne.[494] But we are men, created in the image of our Creator,\nwhose eternity is true, and whose truth is eternal, whose love is\neternal and true, and who Himself is the eternal, true, and adorable\nTrinity, without confusion, without separation; and, therefore, while,\nas we run over all the works which He has established, we may detect,\nas it were, His footprints, now more and now less distinct even in\nthose things that are beneath us, since they could not so much as\nexist, or be bodied forth in any shape, or follow and observe any law,\nhad they not been made by Him who supremely is, and is supremely good\nand supremely wise; yet in ourselves beholding His image, let us, like\nthat younger son of the gospel, come to ourselves, and arise and return\nto Him from whom by our sin we had departed. There our being will have\nno death, our knowledge no error, our love no mishap. But now, though\nwe are assured of our possession of these three things, not on the\ntestimony of others, but by our own consciousness of their presence,\nand because we see them with our own most truthful interior vision,\nyet, as we cannot of ourselves know how long they are to continue, and\nwhether they shall never cease to be, and what issue their good or\nbad use will lead to, we seek for others who can acquaint us of these\nthings, if we have not already found them. Of the trustworthiness\nof these witnesses, there will, not now, but subsequently, be an\nopportunity of speaking. But in this book let us go on as we have\nbegun, with God's help, to speak of the city of God, not in its state\nof pilgrimage and mortality, but as it exists ever immortal in the\nheavens,--that is, let us speak of the holy angels who maintain their\nallegiance to God, who never were, nor ever shall be, apostate, between\nwhom and those who forsook light eternal and became darkness, God, as\nwe have already said, made at the first a separation.\n\n\n  29. _Of the knowledge by which the holy angels know God in His\n      essence, and by which they see the causes of His works in the\n      art of the worker, before they see them in the works of the\n      artist._\n\nThose holy angels come to the knowledge of God not by audible words,\nbut by the presence to their souls of immutable truth, _i.e._, of\nthe only-begotten Word of God; and they know this Word Himself,\nand the Father, and their Holy Spirit, and that this Trinity is\nindivisible, and that the three persons of it are one substance,\nand that there are not three Gods but one God; and this they so\nknow, that it is better understood by them than we are by ourselves.\nThus, too, they know the creature also, not in itself, but by this\nbetter way, in the wisdom of God, as if in the art by which it was\ncreated; and, consequently, they know themselves better in God than\nin themselves, though they have also this latter knowledge. For\nthey were created, and are different from their Creator. In Him,\ntherefore, they have, as it were, a noonday knowledge; in themselves,\na twilight knowledge, according to our former explanations.[495] For\nthere is a great difference between knowing a thing in the design in\nconformity to which it was made, and knowing it in itself,--_e.g._,\nthe straightness of lines and correctness of figures is known in one\nway when mentally conceived, in another when described on paper; and\njustice is known in one way in the unchangeable truth, in another in\nthe spirit of a just man. So is it with all other things,--as, the\nfirmament between the water above and below, which was called the\nheaven; the gathering of the waters beneath, and the laying bare of\nthe dry land, and the production of plants and trees; the creation\nof sun, moon, and stars; and of the animals out of the waters,\nfowls, and fish, and monsters of the deep; and of everything that\nwalks or creeps on the earth, and of man himself, who excels all\nthat is on the earth,--all these things are known in one way by the\nangels in the Word of God, in which they see the eternally abiding\ncauses and reasons according to which they were made, and in another\nway in themselves: in the former, with a clearer knowledge; in the\nlatter, with a knowledge dimmer, and rather of the bare works than\nof the design. Yet, when these works are referred to the praise and\nadoration of the Creator Himself, it is as if morning dawned in the\nminds of those who contemplate them.\n\n\n    30. _Of the perfection of the number six, which is the first of\n         the numbers which is composed of its aliquot parts._\n\nThese works are recorded to have been completed in six days (the same\nday being six times repeated), because six is a perfect number,--not\nbecause God required a protracted time, as if He could not at once\ncreate all things, which then should mark the course of time by the\nmovements proper to them, but because the perfection of the works was\nsignified by the number six. For the number six is the first which is\nmade up of its own[496] parts, _i.e._, of its sixth, third, and half,\nwhich are respectively one, two, and three, and which make a total\nof six. In this way of looking at a number, those are said to be its\nparts which exactly divide it, as a half, a third, a fourth, or a\nfraction with any denominator,--_e.g._, four is a part of nine, but not\ntherefore an aliquot part; but one is, for it is the ninth part; and\nthree is, for it is the third. Yet these two parts, the ninth and the\nthird, or one and three, are far from making its whole sum of nine. So\nagain, in the number ten, four is a part, yet does not divide it; but\none is an aliquot part, for it is a tenth; so it has a fifth, which\nis two; and a half, which is five. But these three parts, a tenth, a\nfifth, and a half, or one, two, and five, added together, do not make\nten, but eight. Of the number twelve, again, the parts added together\nexceed the whole; for it has a twelfth, that is, one; a sixth, or two;\na fourth, which is three; a third, which is four; and a half, which\nis six. But one, two, three, four, and six make up, not twelve, but\nmore, viz. sixteen. So much I have thought fit to state for the sake\nof illustrating the perfection of the number six, which is, as I said,\nthe first which is exactly made up of its own parts added together;\nand in this number of days God finished His work.[497] And, therefore,\nwe must not despise the science of numbers, which, in many passages\nof holy Scripture, is found to be of eminent service to the careful\ninterpreter.[498] Neither has it been without reason numbered among\nGod's praises, \"Thou hast ordered all things in number, and measure,\nand weight.\"[499]\n\n\n     31. _Of the seventh day, in which completeness and repose are\n                             celebrated._\n\nBut, on the seventh day (_i.e._, the same day repeated seven times,\nwhich number is also a perfect one, though for another reason), the\nrest of God is set forth, and then, too, we first hear of its being\nhallowed. So that God did not wish to hallow this day by His works, but\nby His rest, which has no evening, for it is not a creature; so that,\nbeing known in one way in the Word of God, and in another in itself, it\nshould make a twofold knowledge, daylight and dusk (day and evening).\nMuch more might be said about the perfection of the number seven,\nbut this book is already too long, and I fear lest I should seem to\ncatch at an opportunity of airing my little smattering of science more\nchildishly than profitably. I must speak, therefore, in moderation and\nwith dignity, lest, in too keenly following \"number,\" I be accused of\nforgetting \"weight\" and \"measure.\" Suffice it here to say, that three\nis the first whole number that is odd, four the first that is even,\nand of these two, seven is composed. On this account it is often put\nfor all numbers together, as, \"A just man falleth seven times, and\nriseth up again,\"[500]--that is, let him fall never so often, he will\nnot perish (and this was meant to be understood not of sins, but of\nafflictions conducing to lowliness). Again, \"Seven times a day will I\npraise Thee,\"[501] which elsewhere is expressed thus, \"I will bless the\nLord _at all times_.\"[502] And many such instances are found in the\ndivine authorities, in which the number seven is, as I said, commonly\nused to express the whole, or the completeness of anything. And so the\nHoly Spirit, of whom the Lord says, \"He will teach you all truth,\"[503]\nis signified by this number.[504] In it is the rest of God, the rest\nHis people find in Him. For rest is in the whole, _i.e._ in perfect\ncompleteness, while in the part there is labour. And thus we labour\nas long as we know in part; \"but when that which is perfect is come,\nthen that which is in part shall be done away.\"[505] It is even with\ntoil we search into the Scriptures themselves. But the holy angels,\ntowards whose society and assembly we sigh while in this our toilsome\npilgrimage, as they already abide in their eternal home, so do they\nenjoy perfect facility of knowledge and felicity of rest. It is without\ndifficulty that they help us; for their spiritual movements, pure and\nfree, cost them no effort.\n\n\n  32. _Of the opinion that the angels were created before the world._\n\nBut if some one oppose our opinion, and say that the holy angels\nare not referred to when it is said, \"Let there be light, and there\nwas light;\" if he suppose or teach that some material light, then\nfirst created, was meant, and that the angels were created, not only\nbefore the firmament dividing the waters and named \"the heaven,\" but\nalso before the time signified in the words, \"In the beginning God\ncreated the heaven and the earth;\" if he allege that this phrase, \"In\nthe beginning,\" does not mean that nothing was made before (for the\nangels were), but that God made all things by His Wisdom or Word, who\nis named in Scripture \"the Beginning,\" as He Himself, in the gospel,\nreplied to the Jews when they asked Him who He was, that He was the\nBeginning;[506]--I will not contest the point, chiefly because it\ngives me the liveliest satisfaction to find the Trinity celebrated\nin the very beginning of the book of Genesis. For, having said, \"In\nthe Beginning God created the heaven and the earth,\" meaning that the\nFather made them in the Son (as the psalm testifies where it says,\n\"How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! in Wisdom hast Thou made them\nall\"[507]), a little afterwards mention is fitly made of the Holy\nSpirit also. For, when it had been told us what kind of earth God\ncreated at first, or what the mass or matter was which God, under\nthe name of \"heaven and earth,\" had provided for the construction of\nthe world, as is told in the additional words, \"And the earth was\nwithout form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep,\"\nthen, for the sake of completing the mention of the Trinity, it is\nimmediately added, \"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the\nwaters.\" Let each one, then, take it as he pleases; for it is so\nprofound a passage, that it may well suggest, for the exercise of the\nreader's tact, many opinions, and none of them widely departing from\nthe rule of faith. At the same time, let none doubt that the holy\nangels in their heavenly abodes are, though not, indeed, co-eternal\nwith God, yet secure and certain of eternal and true felicity. To\ntheir company the Lord teaches that His little ones belong; and not\nonly says, \"They shall be equal to the angels of God,\"[508] but\nshows, too, what blessed contemplation the angels themselves enjoy,\nsaying, \"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones: for\nI say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face\nof my Father which is in heaven.\"[509]\n\n\n  33. _Of the two different and dissimilar communities of angels,\n      which are not inappropriately signified by the names light and\n      darkness._\n\nThat certain angels sinned, and were thrust down to the lowest parts\nof this world, where they are, as it were, incarcerated till their\nfinal damnation in the day of judgment, the Apostle Peter very\nplainly declares, when he says that \"God spared not the angels that\nsinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains\nof darkness to be reserved unto judgment.\"[510] Who, then, can doubt\nthat God, either in foreknowledge or in act, separated between these\nand the rest? And who will dispute that the rest are justly called\n\"light?\" For even we who are yet living by faith, hoping only and not\nyet enjoying equality with them, are already called \"light\" by the\napostle: \"For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the\nLord.\"[511] But as for these apostate angels, all who understand or\nbelieve them to be worse than unbelieving men are well aware that\nthey are called \"darkness.\" Wherefore, though light and darkness\nare to be taken in their literal signification in these passages\nof Genesis in which it is said, \"God said, Let there be light, and\nthere was light,\" and \"God divided the light from the darkness,\" yet,\nfor our part, we understand these two societies of angels,--the one\nenjoying God, the other swelling with pride; the one to whom it is\nsaid, \"Praise ye Him, all His angels,\"[512] the other whose prince\nsays, \"All these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and\nworship me;\"[513] the one blazing with the holy love of God, the\nother reeking with the unclean lust of self-advancement. And since,\nas it is written, \"God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto\nthe humble,\"[514] we may say, the one dwelling in the heaven of\nheavens, the other cast thence, and raging through the lower regions\nof the air; the one tranquil in the brightness of piety, the other\ntempest-tossed with beclouding desires; the one, at God's pleasure,\ntenderly succouring, justly avenging,--the other, set on by its own\npride, boiling with the lust of subduing and hurting; the one the\nminister of God's goodness to the utmost of their good pleasure,\nthe other held in by God's power from doing the harm it would; the\nformer laughing at the latter when it does good unwillingly by its\npersecutions, the latter envying the former when it gathers in\nits pilgrims. These two angelic communities, then, dissimilar and\ncontrary to one another, the one both by nature good and by will\nupright, the other also good by nature but by will depraved, as they\nare exhibited in other and more explicit passages of holy writ, so I\nthink they are spoken of in this book of Genesis under the names of\nlight and darkness; and even if the author perhaps had a different\nmeaning, yet our discussion of the obscure language has not been\nwasted time; for, though we have been unable to discover his meaning,\nyet we have adhered to the rule of faith, which is sufficiently\nascertained by the faithful from other passages of equal authority.\nFor, though it is the material works of God which are here spoken\nof, they have certainly a resemblance to the spiritual, so that Paul\ncan say, \"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the\nday: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.\"[515] If, on the other\nhand, the author of Genesis saw in the words what we see, then our\ndiscussion reaches this more satisfactory conclusion, that the man of\nGod, so eminently and divinely wise, or rather, that the Spirit of\nGod who by him recorded God's works which were finished on the sixth\nday, may be supposed not to have omitted all mention of the angels,\nwhether he included them in the words \"in the beginning,\" because He\nmade them first, or, which seems most likely, because He made them\nin the only-begotten Word. And, under these names heaven and earth,\nthe whole creation is signified, either as divided into spiritual and\nmaterial, which seems the more likely, or into the two great parts of\nthe world in which all created things are contained, so that, first\nof all, the creation is presented in sum, and then its parts are\nenumerated according to the mystic number of the days.\n\n\n  34. _Of the idea that the angels were meant where the separation\n      of the waters by the firmament is spoken of, and of that other\n      idea that the waters were not created._\n\nSome,[516] however, have supposed that the angelic hosts are somehow\nreferred to under the name of waters, and that this is what is meant\nby, \"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters:\"[517] that\nthe waters above should be understood of the angels, and those below\neither of the visible waters, or of the multitude of bad angels, or\nof the nations of men. If this be so, then it does not here appear\nwhen the angels were created, but when they were separated. Though\nthere have not been wanting men foolish and wicked enough[518] to\ndeny that the waters were made by God, because it is nowhere written,\n\"God said, Let there be waters.\" With equal folly they might say the\nsame of the earth, for nowhere do we read, \"God said, Let the earth\nbe.\" But, say they, it is written, \"In the beginning God created\nthe heaven and the earth.\" Yes, and there the water is meant, for\nboth are included in one word. For \"the sea is His,\" as the psalm\nsays, \"and He made it; and His hands formed the dry land.\"[519] But\nthose who would understand the angels by the waters above the skies\nhave a difficulty about the specific gravity of the elements, and\nfear that the waters, owing to their fluidity and weight, could not\nbe set in the upper parts of the world. So that, if they were to\nconstruct a man upon their own principles, they would not put in his\nhead any moist humours, or \"phlegm\" as the Greeks call it, and which\nacts the part of water among the elements of our body. But, in God's\nhandiwork, the head is the seat of the phlegm, and surely most fitly;\nand yet, according to their supposition, so absurdly that if we were\nnot aware of the fact, and were informed by this same record that God\nhad put a moist and cold and therefore heavy humour in the uppermost\npart of man's body, these world-weighers would refuse belief. And\nif they were confronted with the authority of Scripture, they would\nmaintain that something else must be meant by the words. But, were we\nto investigate and discover all the details which are written in this\ndivine book regarding the creation of the world, we should have much\nto say, and should widely digress from the proposed aim of this work.\nSince, then, we have now said what seemed needful regarding these two\ndiverse and contrary communities of angels, in which the origin of\nthe two human communities (of which we intend to speak anon) is also\nfound, let us at once bring this book also to a conclusion.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[440] Written in the year 416 or 417.\n\n[441] Ps. lxxxvii. 3.\n\n[442] Ps. xlviii. 1.\n\n[443] Ps. xlvi. 4.\n\n[444] Homine assumto, non Deo consumto.\n\n[445] Quo itur Deus, qua itur homo.\n\n[446] A clause is here inserted to give the etymology of _pr\u00e6sentia_\nfrom _pr\u00e6 vensibus_.\n\n[447] Another derivation, _sententia_ from _sensus_, the inward\nperception of the mind.\n\n[448] Gen. i. 1.\n\n[449] Prov. viii. 27.\n\n[450] Matt. xviii. 10.\n\n[451] A common question among the Epicureans; urged by Velleius in\nCic. _De Nat. Deor._ i. 9; adopted by the Manich\u00e6ans and spoken to by\nAugustine in the _Conf._ xi. 10, 12, also in _De Gen. contra Man._ i. 3.\n\n[452] The Neo-Platonists.\n\n[453] Number begins at one, but runs on infinitely.\n\n[454] Gal. iv. 26.\n\n[455] 1 Thess. v. 5.\n\n[456] Comp. _de Gen. ad lit._ i. and iv.\n\n[457] Ver. 35.\n\n[458] Ps. cxlviii. 1-5.\n\n[459] Job xxxviii. 7.\n\n[460] Vives here notes that the Greek theologians and Jerome held,\nwith Plato, that spiritual creatures were made first, and used by God\nin the creation of things material. The Latin theologians and Basil\nheld that God made all things at once.\n\n[461] John i. 9.\n\n[462] Mali enim nulla natura est: sed amissio boni, mali nomen accepit.\n\n[463] Plutarch (_De Plac. Phil._ i. 3, and iv. 3) tells us that\nthis opinion was held by Anaximenes of Miletus, the followers of\nAnaxagoras, and many of the Stoics. Diogenes the Cynic, as well as\nDiogenes of Apollonia, seems to have adopted the same opinion. See\nZeller's _Stoics_, pp. 121 and 199.\n\n[464] \"Ubi lux non est, tenebr\u00e6 sunt, non quia aliquid sunt tenebr\u00e6,\nsed ipsa lucis absentia tenebr\u00e6 dicuntur.\"--Aug. _De Gen. contra\nMan._ 7.\n\n[465] Wisdom vii. 22.\n\n[466] The strongly Platonic tinge of this language is perhaps best\npreserved in a bare literal translation.\n\n[467] Vives remarks that the ancients defined blessedness as an\nabsolutely perfect state in all good, peculiar to God. Perhaps\nAugustine had a reminiscence of the remarkable discussion in the\n_Tusc. Disp._ lib. v., and the definition \"Neque ulla alia huic\nverbo, quum beatum dicimus, subjecta notio est, nisi, secretis malis\nomnibus, cumulata bonorum complexio.\"\n\n[468] With this chapter compare the books _De Dono Persever._ and _De\nCorrep. et Gratia_.\n\n[469] Matt. xxv. 46.\n\n[470] John viii. 44.\n\n[471] 1 John iii. 8.\n\n[472] Cf. _Gen. ad Lit._ xi. 27 et seqq.\n\n[473] Ps. xvii. 6.\n\n[474] 1 John iii. 8.\n\n[475] The Manich\u00e6ans.\n\n[476] Isa. xiv. 12.\n\n[477] Ezek. xxviii. 13.\n\n[478] Job xl. 14 (LXX.).\n\n[479] Ps. civ. 26.\n\n[480] Job. xl. 14 (LXX.).\n\n[481] It must be kept in view that \"vice\" has, in this passage, the\nmeaning of sinful blemish.\n\n[482] Ps. civ. 26.\n\n[483] Quintilian uses it commonly in the sense of antithesis.\n\n[484] 2 Cor. vi. 7-10.\n\n[485] Ecclus. xxxiii. 15.\n\n[486] Gen. i. 14-18.\n\n[487] The reference is to the _Tim\u00e6us_, p. 37 C., where he says,\n\"When the parent Creator perceived this created image of the eternal\ngods in life and motion, He was delighted, and in His joy considered\nhow He might make it still liker its model.\"\n\n[488] Jas. i. 17.\n\n[489] The passage referred to is in the TIM\u00c6US, p. 29 D.: \"Let us\nsay what was the cause of the Creator's forming this universe. He\nwas good; and in the good no envy is ever generated about anything\nwhatever. Therefore, being free from envy, He desired that all things\nshould, as much as possible, resemble Himself.\"\n\n[490] The Manich\u00e6ans, to wit.\n\n[491] Gen. i. 31.\n\n[492] _Proprietas._\n\n[493] This is one of the passages cited by Sir William Hamilton,\nalong with the \"Cogito, ergo sum\" of Descartes, in confirmation of\nhis proof, that in so far as we are _conscious_ of certain modes of\nexistence, in so far we possess an absolute certainty that we exist.\nSee note A in Hamilton's _Reid_, p. 744.\n\n[494] Compare the _Confessions_, xiii. 9.\n\n[495] Ch. 7.\n\n[496] Or aliquot parts.\n\n[497] Comp. Aug. _Gen. ad Lit._ iv. 2, and _De Trinitate_, iv. 7.\n\n[498] For passages illustrating early opinions regarding numbers, see\nSmith's _Dict._ Art. number.\n\n[499] Wisd. xi. 20.\n\n[500] Prov. xxiv. 16.\n\n[501] Ps. cxix. 164.\n\n[502] Ps. xxxiv. 1.\n\n[503] John xvi. 13.\n\n[504] In Isa. xi. 2, as he shows in his eighth sermon, where this\nsubject is further pursued; otherwise, one might have supposed he\nreferred to Rev. iii. 1.\n\n[505] 1 Cor. xiii. 10.\n\n[506] Augustine refers to John viii. 25; see p. 415. He might rather\nhave referred to Rev. iii. 14.\n\n[507] Ps. civ. 24.\n\n[508] Matt. xxii. 30.\n\n[509] Matt. xviii. 10.\n\n[510] 2 Peter ii. 4.\n\n[511] Eph. v. 8.\n\n[512] Ps. cxlviii. 2.\n\n[513] Matt. iv. 9.\n\n[514] Jas. iv. 6.\n\n[515] 1 Thess. v. 5\n\n[516] Augustine himself published this idea in his _Conf._ xiii.\n32, but afterwards retracted it, as \"said without sufficient\nconsideration\" (_Retract._ II. vi. 2). Epiphanius and Jerome ascribe\nit to Origen.\n\n[517] Gen. i. 6.\n\n[518] Namely, the Audians and Samps\u00e6ans, insignificant heretical\nsects mentioned by Theodoret and Epiphanius.\n\n[519] Ps. xcv. 5.\n\n\n\n\n                             BOOK TWELFTH.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n  AUGUSTINE FIRST INSTITUTES TWO INQUIRIES REGARDING THE ANGELS;\n      NAMELY, WHENCE IS THERE IN SOME A GOOD, AND IN OTHERS AN\n      EVIL WILL? AND, WHAT IS THE REASON OF THE BLESSEDNESS OF THE\n      GOOD, AND THE MISERY OF THE EVIL? AFTERWARDS HE TREATS OF THE\n      CREATION OF MAN, AND TEACHES THAT HE IS NOT FROM ETERNITY, BUT\n      WAS CREATED, AND BY NONE OTHER THAN GOD.\n\n\n   1. _That the nature of the angels, both good and bad, is one and\n                              the same._\n\nIt has already, in the preceding book, been shown how the two cities\noriginated among the angels. Before I speak of the creation of man,\nand show how the cities took their rise, so far as regards the race\nof rational mortals, I see that I must first, so far as I can, adduce\nwhat may demonstrate that it is not incongruous and unsuitable to\nspeak of a society composed of angels and men together; so that there\nare not four cities or societies,--two, namely, of angels, and as\nmany of men,--but rather two in all, one composed of the good, the\nother of the wicked, angels or men indifferently.\n\nThat the contrary propensities in good and bad angels have arisen,\nnot from a difference in their nature and origin, since God, the\ngood Author and Creator of all essences, created them both, but from\na difference in their wills and desires, it is impossible to doubt.\nWhile some stedfastly continued in that which was the common good of\nall, namely, in God Himself, and in His eternity, truth, and love;\nothers, being enamoured rather of their own power, as if they could\nbe their own good, lapsed to this private good of their own, from\nthat higher and beatific good which was common to all, and, bartering\nthe lofty dignity of eternity for the inflation of pride, the most\nassured verity for the slyness of vanity, uniting love for factious\npartisanship, they became proud, deceived, envious. The cause,\ntherefore, of the blessedness of the good is adherence to God. And so\nthe cause of the others' misery will be found in the contrary, that\nis, in their not adhering to God. Wherefore, if when the question\nis asked, why are the former blessed, it is rightly answered,\nbecause they adhere to God; and when it is asked, why are the latter\nmiserable, it is rightly answered, because they do not adhere to\nGod,--then there is no other good for the rational or intellectual\ncreature save God only. Thus, though it is not every creature that\ncan be blessed (for beasts, trees, stones, and things of that kind\nhave not this capacity), yet that creature which has the capacity\ncannot be blessed of itself, since it is created out of nothing, but\nonly by Him by whom it has been created. For it is blessed by the\npossession of that whose loss makes it miserable. He, then, who is\nblessed not in another, but in himself, cannot be miserable, because\nhe cannot lose himself.\n\nAccordingly we say that there is no unchangeable good but the one,\ntrue, blessed God; that the things which He made are indeed good\nbecause from Him, yet mutable because made not out of Him, but out of\nnothing. Although, therefore, they are not the supreme good, for God\nis a greater good, yet those mutable things which can adhere to the\nimmutable good, and so be blessed, are very good; for so completely\nis He their good, that without Him they cannot but be wretched. And\nthe other created things in the universe are not better on this\naccount, that they cannot be miserable. For no one would say that\nthe other members of the body are superior to the eyes, because they\ncannot be blind. But as the sentient nature, even when it feels\npain, is superior to the stony, which can feel none, so the rational\nnature, even when wretched, is more excellent than that which lacks\nreason or feeling, and can therefore experience no misery. And since\nthis is so, then in this nature which has been created so excellent,\nthat though it be mutable itself, it can yet secure its blessedness\nby adhering to the immutable good, the supreme God; and since it is\nnot satisfied unless it be perfectly blessed, and cannot be thus\nblessed save in God,--in this nature, I say, not to adhere to God, is\nmanifestly a fault.[520] Now every fault injures the nature, and is\nconsequently contrary to the nature. The creature, therefore, which\ncleaves to God, differs from those who do not, not by nature, but\nby fault; and yet by this very fault the nature itself is proved to\nbe very noble and admirable. For that nature is certainly praised,\nthe fault of which is justly blamed. For we justly blame the fault\nbecause it mars the praiseworthy nature. As, then, when we say that\nblindness is a defect of the eyes, we prove that sight belongs to the\nnature of the eyes; and when we say that deafness is a defect of the\nears, hearing is thereby proved to belong to their nature;--so, when\nwe say that it is a fault of the angelic creature that it does not\ncleave to God, we hereby most plainly declare that it pertained to\nits nature to cleave to God. And who can worthily conceive or express\nhow great a glory that is, to cleave to God, so as to live to Him, to\ndraw wisdom from Him, to delight in Him, and to enjoy this so great\ngood, without death, error, or grief? And thus, since every vice is\nan injury of the nature, that very vice of the wicked angels, their\ndeparture from God, is sufficient proof that God created their nature\nso good, that it is an injury to it not to be with God.\n\n\n  2. _That there is no entity_[521] _contrary to the divine, because\n      nonentity seems to be that which is wholly opposite to Him who\n      supremely and always is._\n\nThis may be enough to prevent any one from supposing, when we speak\nof the apostate angels, that they could have another nature, derived,\nas it were, from some different origin, and not from God. From the\ngreat impiety of this error we shall disentangle ourselves the more\nreadily and easily, the more distinctly we understand that which God\nspoke by the angel when He sent Moses to the children of Israel: \"I\nam that I am.\"[522] For since God is the supreme existence, that is\nto say, supremely is, and is therefore unchangeable, the things that\nHe made He empowered to be, but not to be supremely like Himself.\nTo some He communicated a more ample, to others a more limited\nexistence, and thus arranged the natures of beings in ranks. For as\nfrom _sapere_ comes _sapientia_, so from _esse_ comes _essentia_,--a\nnew word indeed, which the old Latin writers did not use, but which\nis naturalized in our day,[523] that our language may not want an\nequivalent for the Greek \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. For this is expressed word for word\nby _essentia_. Consequently, to that nature which supremely is, and\nwhich created all else that exists, no nature is contrary save that\nwhich does not exist. For nonentity is the contrary of that which is.\nAnd thus there is no being contrary to God, the Supreme Being, and\nAuthor of all beings whatsoever.\n\n\n  3. _That the enemies of God are so, not by nature but by will,\n      which, as it injures them, injures a good nature; for if vice\n      does not injure, it is not vice._\n\nIn Scripture they are called God's enemies who oppose His rule,\nnot by nature, but by vice; having no power to hurt Him, but only\nthemselves. For they are His enemies, not through their power to\nhurt, but by their will to oppose Him. For God is unchangeable, and\nwholly proof against injury. Therefore the vice which makes those\nwho are called His enemies resist Him, is an evil not to God, but to\nthemselves. And to them it is an evil, solely because it corrupts the\ngood of their nature. It is not nature, therefore, but vice, which\nis contrary to God. For that which is evil is contrary to the good.\nAnd who will deny that God is the supreme good? Vice, therefore, is\ncontrary to God, as evil to good. Further, the nature it vitiates is\na good, and therefore to this good also it is contrary. But while\nit is contrary to God only as evil to good, it is contrary to the\nnature it vitiates, both as evil and as hurtful. For to God no evils\nare hurtful; but only to natures mutable and corruptible, though,\nby the testimony of the vices themselves, originally good. For were\nthey not good, vices could not hurt them. For how do they hurt them\nbut by depriving them of integrity, beauty, welfare, virtue, and, in\nshort, whatever natural good vice is wont to diminish or destroy? But\nif there be no good to take away, then no injury can be done, and\nconsequently there can be no vice. For it is impossible that there\nshould be a harmless vice. Whence we gather, that though vice cannot\ninjure the unchangeable good, it can injure nothing but good; because\nit does not exist where it does not injure. This, then, may be thus\nformulated: Vice cannot be in the highest good, and cannot be but in\nsome good. Things solely good, therefore, can in some circumstances\nexist; things solely evil, never; for even those natures which are\nvitiated by an evil will, so far indeed as they are vitiated, are\nevil, but in so far as they are natures they are good. And when\na vitiated nature is punished, besides the good it has in being a\nnature, it has this also, that it is not unpunished.[524] For this is\njust, and certainly everything just is a good. For no one is punished\nfor natural, but for voluntary vices. For even the vice which by the\nforce of habit and long continuance has become a second nature, had\nits origin in the will. For at present we are speaking of the vices\nof the nature, which has a mental capacity for that enlightenment\nwhich discriminates between what is just and what is unjust.\n\n\n   4. _Of the nature of irrational and lifeless creatures, which in\n   their own kind and order do not mar the beauty of the universe._\n\nBut it is ridiculous to condemn the faults of beasts and trees, and\nother such mortal and mutable things as are void of intelligence,\nsensation, or life, even though these faults should destroy their\ncorruptible nature; for these creatures received, at their Creator's\nwill, an existence fitting them, by passing away and giving place to\nothers, to secure that lowest form of beauty, the beauty of seasons,\nwhich in its own place is a requisite part of this world. For things\nearthly were neither to be made equal to things heavenly, nor were\nthey, though inferior, to be quite omitted from the universe. Since,\nthen, in those situations where such things are appropriate, some\nperish to make way for others that are born in their room, and the\nless succumb to the greater, and the things that are overcome are\ntransformed into the quality of those that have the mastery, this is\nthe appointed order of things transitory. Of this order the beauty\ndoes not strike us, because by our mortal frailty we are so involved\nin a part of it, that we cannot perceive the whole, in which these\nfragments that offend us are harmonized with the most accurate\nfitness and beauty. And therefore, where we are not so well able to\nperceive the wisdom of the Creator, we are very properly enjoined to\nbelieve it, lest in the vanity of human rashness we presume to find\nany fault with the work of so great an Artificer. At the same time,\nif we attentively consider even these faults of earthly things,\nwhich are neither voluntary nor penal, they seem to illustrate the\nexcellence of the natures themselves, which are all originated and\ncreated by God; for it is that which pleases us in this nature which\nwe are displeased to see removed by the fault,--unless even the\nnatures themselves displease men, as often happens when they become\nhurtful to them, and then men estimate them not by their nature,\nbut by their utility; as in the case of those animals whose swarms\nscourged the pride of the Egyptians. But in this way of estimating,\nthey may find fault with the sun itself; for certain criminals or\ndebtors are sentenced by the judges to be set in the sun. Therefore\nit is not with respect to our convenience or discomfort, but with\nrespect to their own nature, that the creatures are glorifying to\ntheir Artificer. Thus even the nature of the eternal fire, penal\nthough it be to the condemned sinners, is most assuredly worthy of\npraise. For what is more beautiful than fire flaming, blazing, and\nshining? What more useful than fire for warming, restoring, cooking,\nthough nothing is more destructive than fire burning and consuming?\nThe same thing, then, when applied in one way, is destructive, but\nwhen applied suitably, is most beneficial. For who can find words to\ntell its uses throughout the whole world? We must not listen, then,\nto those who praise the light of fire but find fault with its heat,\njudging it not by its nature, but by their convenience or discomfort.\nFor they wish to see, but not to be burnt. But they forget that this\nvery light which is so pleasant to them, disagrees with and hurts\nweak eyes; and in that heat which is disagreeable to them, some\nanimals find the most suitable conditions of a healthy life.\n\n\n  5. _That in all natures, of every kind and rank, God is glorified._\n\nAll natures, then, inasmuch as they are, and have therefore a rank\nand species of their own, and a kind of internal harmony, are\ncertainly good. And when they are in the places assigned to them by\nthe order of their nature, they preserve such being as they have\nreceived. And those things which have not received everlasting being,\nare altered for better or for worse, so as to suit the wants and\nmotions of those things to which the Creator's law has made them\nsubservient; and thus they tend in the divine providence to that\nend which is embraced in the general scheme of the government of the\nuniverse. So that, though the corruption of transitory and perishable\nthings brings them to utter destruction, it does not prevent their\nproducing that which was designed to be their result. And this being\nso, God, who supremely is, and who therefore created every being\nwhich has not supreme existence (for that which was made of nothing\ncould not be equal to Him, and indeed could not be at all had He not\nmade it), is not to be found fault with on account of the creature's\nfaults, but is to be praised in view of the natures He has made.\n\n\n   6. _What the cause of the blessedness of the good angels is, and\n             what the cause of the misery of the wicked._\n\nThus the true cause of the blessedness of the good angels is found\nto be this, that they cleave to Him who supremely is. And if we\nask the cause of the misery of the bad, it occurs to us, and not\nunreasonably, that they are miserable because they have forsaken\nHim who supremely is, and have turned to themselves who have no\nsuch essence. And this vice, what else is it called than pride? For\n\"pride is the beginning of sin.\"[525] They were unwilling, then, to\npreserve their strength for God; and as adherence to God was the\ncondition of their enjoying an ampler being, they diminished it by\npreferring themselves to Him. This was the first defect, and the\nfirst impoverishment, and the first flaw of their nature, which was\ncreated, not indeed supremely existent, but finding its blessedness\nin the enjoyment of the Supreme Being; whilst by abandoning Him it\nshould become, not indeed no nature at all, but a nature with a less\nample existence, and therefore wretched.\n\nIf the further question be asked, What was the efficient cause of\ntheir evil will? there is none. For what is it which makes the will\nbad, when it is the will itself which makes the action bad? And\nconsequently the bad will is the cause of the bad action, but nothing\nis the efficient cause of the bad will. For if anything is the cause,\nthis thing either has or has not a will. If it has, the will is\neither good or bad. If good, who is so left to himself as to say that\na good will makes a will bad? For in this case a good will would be\nthe cause of sin; a most absurd supposition. On the other hand, if\nthis hypothetical thing has a bad will, I wish to know what made it\nso; and that we may not go on for ever, I ask at once, what made the\n_first_ evil will bad? For that is not the first which was itself\ncorrupted by an evil will, but that is the first which was made\nevil by no other will. For if it were preceded by that which made\nit evil, that will was first which made the other evil. But if it\nis replied, \"Nothing made it evil; it always was evil,\" I ask if it\nhas been existing in some nature. For if not, then it did not exist\nat all; and if it did exist in some nature, then it vitiated and\ncorrupted it, and injured it, and consequently deprived it of good.\nAnd therefore the evil will could not exist in an evil nature, but\nin a nature at once good and mutable, which this vice could injure.\nFor if it did no injury, it was no vice; and consequently the will\nin which it was, could not be called evil. But if it did injury, it\ndid it by taking away or diminishing good. And therefore there could\nnot be from eternity, as was suggested, an evil will in that thing\nin which there had been previously a natural good, which the evil\nwill was able to diminish by corrupting it. If, then, it was not from\neternity, who, I ask, made it? The only thing that can be suggested\nin reply is, that something which itself had no will, made the will\nevil. I ask, then, whether this thing was superior, inferior, or\nequal to it? If superior, then it is better. How, then, has it no\nwill, and not rather a good will? The same reasoning applies if\nit was equal; for so long as two things have equally a good will,\nthe one cannot produce in the other an evil will. Then remains the\nsupposition that that which corrupted the will of the angelic nature\nwhich first sinned, was itself an inferior thing without a will. But\nthat thing, be it of the lowest and most earthly kind, is certainly\nitself good, since it is a nature and being, with a form and rank of\nits own in its own kind and order. How, then, can a good thing be the\nefficient cause of an evil will? How, I say, can good be the cause\nof evil? For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns\nto what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which\nit turns, but because the turning itself is wicked. Therefore it is\nnot an inferior thing which has made the will evil, but it is itself\nwhich has become so by wickedly and inordinately desiring an inferior\nthing. For if two men, alike in physical and moral constitution, see\nthe same corporal beauty, and one of them is excited by the sight to\ndesire an illicit enjoyment, while the other stedfastly maintains a\nmodest restraint of his will, what do we suppose brings it about,\nthat there is an evil will in the one and not in the other? What\nproduces it in the man in whom it exists? Not the bodily beauty,\nfor that was presented equally to the gaze of both, and yet did\nnot produce in both an evil will. Did the flesh of the one cause\nthe desire as he looked? But why did not the flesh of the other?\nOr was it the disposition? But why not the disposition of both?\nFor we are supposing that both were of a like temperament of body\nand soul. Must we, then, say that the one was tempted by a secret\nsuggestion of the evil spirit? As if it was not by his own will that\nhe consented to this suggestion and to any inducement whatever!\nThis consent, then, this evil will which he presented to the evil\nsuasive influence,--what was the cause of it, we ask? For, not to\ndelay on such a difficulty as this, if both are tempted equally, and\none yields and consents to the temptation, while the other remains\nunmoved by it, what other account can we give of the matter than\nthis, that the one is willing, the other unwilling, to fall away from\nchastity? And what causes this but their own wills, in cases at least\nsuch as we are supposing, where the temperament is identical? The\nsame beauty was equally obvious to the eyes of both; the same secret\ntemptation pressed on both with equal violence. However minutely we\nexamine the case, therefore, we can discern nothing which caused the\nwill of the one to be evil. For if we say that the man himself made\nhis will evil, what was the man himself before his will was evil but\na good nature created by God, the unchangeable good? Here are two men\nwho, before the temptation, were alike in body and soul, and of whom\none yielded to the tempter who persuaded him, while the other could\nnot be persuaded to desire that lovely body which was equally before\nthe eyes of both. Shall we say of the successfully tempted man that\nhe corrupted his own will, since he was certainly good before his\nwill became bad? Then, why did he do so? Was it because his will was\na nature, or because it was made of nothing? We shall find that the\nlatter is the case. For if a nature is the cause of an evil will,\nwhat else can we say than that evil arises from good, or that good is\nthe cause of evil? And how can it come to pass that a nature, good\nthough mutable, should produce any evil--that is to say, should make\nthe will itself wicked?\n\n\n  7. _That we ought not to expect to find any efficient cause of the\n                              evil will._\n\nLet no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will;\nfor it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an\neffecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which\nsupremely is, to that which has less of being,--this is to begin\nto have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these\ndefections,--causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient,--is\nas if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of\nthese are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the\nlatter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality,[526] but\nby their want of it. Let no one, then, seek to know from me what I know\nthat I do not know; unless he perhaps wishes to learn to be ignorant of\nthat of which all we know is, that it cannot be known. For those things\nwhich are known not by their actuality, but by their want of it, are\nknown, if our expression may be allowed and understood, by not knowing\nthem, that by knowing them they may be not known. For when the eyesight\nsurveys objects that strike the sense, it nowhere sees darkness but\nwhere it begins not to see. And so no other sense but the ear can\nperceive silence, and yet it is only perceived by not hearing. Thus,\ntoo, our mind perceives intelligible forms by understanding them; but\nwhen they are deficient, it knows them by not knowing them; for \"who\ncan understand defects?\"[527]\n\n\n    8. _Of the misdirected love whereby the will fell away from the\n                    immutable to the mutable good._\n\nThis I do know, that the nature of God can never, nowhere,\nnowise be defective, and that natures made of nothing can. These\nlatter, however, the more being they have, and the more good they\ndo (for then they do something positive), the more they have\nefficient causes; but in so far as they are defective in being, and\nconsequently do evil (for then what is their work but vanity?), they\nhave deficient causes. And I know likewise, that the will could\nnot become evil, were it unwilling to become so; and therefore its\nfailings are justly punished, being not necessary, but voluntary.\nFor its defections are not to evil things, but are themselves evil;\nthat is to say, are not towards things that are naturally and in\nthemselves evil, but the defection of the will is evil, because it\nis contrary to the order of nature, and an abandonment of that which\nhas supreme being for that which has less. For avarice is not a\nfault inherent in gold, but in the man who inordinately loves gold,\nto the detriment of justice, which ought to be held in incomparably\nhigher regard than gold. Neither is luxury the fault of lovely and\ncharming objects, but of the heart that inordinately loves sensual\npleasures, to the neglect of temperance, which attaches us to objects\nmore lovely in their spirituality, and more delectable by their\nincorruptibility. Nor yet is boasting the fault of human praise, but\nof the soul that is inordinately fond of the applause of men, and\nthat makes light of the voice of conscience. Pride, too, is not the\nfault of him who delegates power, nor of power itself, but of the\nsoul that is inordinately enamoured of its own power, and despises\nthe more just dominion of a higher authority. Consequently he who\ninordinately loves the good which any nature possesses, even though\nhe obtain it, himself becomes evil in the good, and wretched because\ndeprived of a greater good.\n\n\n  9. _Whether the angels, besides receiving from God their nature,\n      received from Him also their good will by the Holy Spirit\n      imbuing them with love._\n\nThere is, then, no natural efficient cause, or, if I may be allowed\nthe expression, no essential cause, of the evil will, since itself\nis the origin of evil in mutable spirits, by which the good of their\nnature is diminished and corrupted; and the will is made evil by\nnothing else than defection from God,--a defection of which the\ncause, too, is certainly deficient. But as to the good will, if we\nshould say that there is no efficient cause of it, we must beware of\ngiving currency to the opinion that the good will of the good angels\nis not created, but is co-eternal with God. For if they themselves\nare created, how can we say that their good will was eternal? But\nif created, was it created along with themselves, or did they exist\nfor a time without it? If along with themselves, then doubtless it\nwas created by Him who created them, and, as soon as ever they were\ncreated, they attached themselves to Him who created them, with the\nlove He created in them. And they are separated from the society of\nthe rest, because they have continued in the same good will; while\nthe others have fallen away to another will, which is an evil one, by\nthe very fact of its being a falling away from the good; from which,\nwe may add, they would not have fallen away had they been unwilling\nto do so. But if the good angels existed for a time without a good\nwill, and produced it in themselves without God's interference, then\nit follows that they made themselves better than He made them. Away\nwith such a thought! For without a good will, what were they but\nevil? Or if they were not evil, because they had not an evil will\nany more than a good one (for they had not fallen away from that\nwhich as yet they had not begun to enjoy), certainly they were not\nthe same, not so good, as when they came to have a good will. Or if\nthey could not make themselves better than they were made by Him\nwho is surpassed by none in His work, then certainly, without His\nhelpful operation, they could not come to possess that good will\nwhich made them better. And though their good will effected that\nthey did not turn to themselves, who had a more stinted existence,\nbut to Him who supremely is, and that, being united to Him, their\nown being was enlarged, and they lived a wise and blessed life by\nHis communications to them, what does this prove but that the will,\nhowever good it might be, would have continued helplessly only to\ndesire Him, had not He who had made their nature out of nothing, and\nyet capable of enjoying Him, first stimulated it to desire Him, and\nthen filled it with Himself, and so made it better?\n\nBesides, this too has to be inquired into, whether, if the good\nangels made their own will good, they did so with or without will?\nIf without, then it was not their doing. If with, was the will good\nor bad? If bad, how could a bad will give birth to a good one? If\ngood, then already they had a good will. And who made this will,\nwhich already they had, but He who created them with a good will,\nor with that chaste love by which they cleaved to Him, in one and\nthe same act creating their nature, and endowing it with grace? And\nthus we are driven to believe that the holy angels never existed\nwithout a good will or the love of God. But the angels who, though\ncreated good, are yet evil now, became so by their own will. And\nthis will was not made evil by their good nature, unless by its\nvoluntary defection from good; for good is not the cause of evil, but\na defection from good is. These angels, therefore, either received\nless of the grace of the divine love than those who persevered in the\nsame; or if both were created equally good, then, while the one fell\nby their evil will, the others were more abundantly assisted, and\nattained to that pitch of blessedness at which they became certain\nthey should never fall from it,--as we have already shown in the\npreceding book.[528] We must therefore acknowledge, with the praise\ndue to the Creator, that not only of holy men, but also of the holy\nangels, it can be said that \"the love of God is shed abroad in their\nhearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto them.\"[529] And that\nnot only of men, but primarily and principally of angels it is true,\nas it is written, \"It is good to draw near to God.\"[530] And those\nwho have this good in common, have, both with Him to whom they draw\nnear, and with one another, a holy fellowship, and form one city of\nGod--His living sacrifice, and His living temple. And I see that, as\nI have now spoken of the rise of this city among the angels, it is\ntime to speak of the origin of that part of it which is hereafter\nto be united to the immortal angels, and which at present is being\ngathered from among mortal men, and is either sojourning on earth,\nor, in the persons of those who have passed through death, is resting\nin the secret receptacles and abodes of disembodied spirits. For\nfrom one man, whom God created as the first, the whole human race\ndescended, according to the faith of Holy Scripture, which deservedly\nis of wonderful authority among all nations throughout the world;\nsince, among its other true statements, it predicted, by its divine\nforesight, that all nations would give credit to it.\n\n\n    10. _Of the falseness of the history which allots many thousand\n                      years to the world's past._\n\nLet us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say,\nwhen they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some\nhold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world\nitself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is\ndescribing our race, \"Individually they are mortal, but collectively,\nand as a race, they are immortal.\"[531] And when they are asked, how,\nif the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their\nhistory, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented,\nand who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and\nwho first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? they\nreply[532] that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals\nby fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from\nthese, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and\nthat thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though\nthose things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe\ndevastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then,\nbut that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they\nsay what they think, not what they know.\n\nThey are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which\nprofess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning\nby the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet\npassed.[533] And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness\nof these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted\nfor, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate,\nlet me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his\nmother Olympias,[534] giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian\npriest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which\ngave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians.\nIn this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is\nassigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only\n1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both\nGreek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then\nto the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned\nmore than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he\nwas speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the\nMacedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233\nyears, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give\na much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though\nmultiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter.\nFor the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months\nto their year;[535] so that one year, according to the fuller and truer\ncomputation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would\ncomprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does\nthe Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And\ntherefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does\nnot exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given\nby our documents, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of\nAlexander, which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter\nof chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we\nbelieve these documents which, though full of fabulous and fictitious\nantiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known\nand divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe\nthem, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved,\ntoo, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future\nevents, which have so exactly come to pass!\n\n\n  11. _Of those who suppose that this world indeed is not eternal,\n      but that either there are numberless worlds, or that one and\n      the same world is perpetually resolved into its elements, and\n      renewed at the conclusion of fixed cycles._\n\nThere are some, again, who, though they do not suppose that this\nworld is eternal, are of opinion either that this is not the only\nworld, but that there are numberless worlds, or that indeed it is the\nonly one, but that it dies, and is born again at fixed intervals,\nand this times without number;[536] but they must acknowledge that\nthe human race existed before there were other men to beget them.\nFor they cannot suppose that, if the whole world perish, some men\nwould be left alive in the world, as they might survive in floods and\nconflagrations, which those other speculators suppose to be partial,\nand from which they can therefore reasonably argue that a few men\nsurvived whose posterity would renew the population; but as they\nbelieve that the world itself is renewed out of its own material,\nso they must believe that out of its elements the human race was\nproduced, and then that the progeny of mortals sprang like that of\nother animals from their parents.\n\n\n12. _How these persons are to be answered, who find fault with the\ncreation of man on the score of its recent date._\n\nAs to those who are always asking why man was not created during\nthese countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into\nbeing so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years\nhave elapsed since he began to be, I would reply to them regarding\nthe creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the\nworld to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a\nbeginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some\nthink his statement was not consistent with his real opinion.[537] If\nit offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of\nman is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities,\nlet them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit\nis long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little,\nor indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity.\nConsequently, if there had elapsed since the creation of man, I do not\nsay five or six, but even sixty or six hundred thousand years, or sixty\ntimes as many, or six hundred or six hundred thousand times as many, or\nthis sum multiplied until it could no longer be expressed in numbers,\nthe same question could still be put, Why was he not made before?\nFor the past and boundless eternity during which God abstained from\ncreating man is so great, that, compare it with what vast and untold\nnumber of ages you please, so long as there is a definite conclusion of\nthis term of time, it is not even as if you compared the minutest drop\nof water with the ocean that everywhere flows around the globe. For\nof these two, one indeed is very small, the other incomparably vast,\nyet both are finite; but that space of time which starts from some\nbeginning, and is limited by some termination, be it of what extent it\nmay, if you compare it with that which has no beginning, I know not\nwhether to say we should count it the very minutest thing, or nothing\nat all. For, take this limited time, and deduct from the end of it,\none by one, the briefest moments (as you might take day by day from a\nman's life, beginning at the day in which he now lives, back to that\nof his birth), and though the number of moments you must subtract in\nthis backward movement be so great that no word can express it, yet\nthis subtraction will some time carry you to the beginning. But if\nyou take away from a time which has no beginning, I do not say brief\nmoments one by one, nor yet hours, or days, or months, or years even in\nquantities, but terms of years so vast that they cannot be named by the\nmost skilful arithmetician,--take away terms of years as vast as that\nwhich we have supposed to be gradually consumed by the deduction of\nmoments,--and take them away not once and again repeatedly, but always,\nand what do you effect, what do you make by your deduction, since you\nnever reach the beginning which has no existence? Wherefore, that\nwhich we now demand after five thousand odd years, our descendants\nmight with like curiosity demand after six hundred thousand years,\nsupposing these dying generations of men continue so long to decay and\nbe renewed, and supposing posterity continues as weak and ignorant as\nourselves. The same question might have been asked by those who have\nlived before us, and while man was even newer upon earth. The first\nman himself, in short, might, the day after, or the very day of his\ncreation, have asked why he was created no sooner. And no matter at\nwhat earlier or later period he had been created, this controversy\nabout the commencement of this world's history would have had precisely\nthe same difficulties as it has now.\n\n\n  13. _Of the revolution of the ages, which some philosophers believe\n      will bring all things round again, after a certain fixed cycle,\n      to the same order and form as at first._\n\nThis controversy some philosophers have seen no other approved means\nof solving than by introducing cycles of time, in which there should\nbe a constant renewal and repetition of the order of nature;[538]\nand they have therefore asserted that these cycles will ceaselessly\nrecur, one passing away and another coming, though they are not\nagreed as to whether one permanent world shall pass through all these\ncycles, or whether the world shall at fixed intervals die out, and\nbe renewed so as to exhibit a recurrence of the same phenomena--the\nthings which have been, and those which are to be, coinciding. And\nfrom this fantastic vicissitude they exempt not even the immortal\nsoul that has attained wisdom, consigning it to a ceaseless\ntransmigration between delusive blessedness and real misery. For how\ncan that be truly called blessed which has no assurance of being so\neternally, and is either in ignorance of the truth, and blind to the\nmisery that is approaching, or, knowing it, is in misery and fear?\nOr if it passes to bliss, and leaves miseries for ever, then there\nhappens in time a new thing which time shall not end. Why not, then,\nthe world also? Why may not man, too, be a similar thing? So that, by\nfollowing the straight path of sound doctrine, we escape, I know not\nwhat circuitous paths, discovered by deceiving and deceived sages.\n\nSome, too, in advocating these recurring cycles that restore all\nthings to their original, cite in favour of their supposition what\nSolomon says in the book of Ecclesiastes: \"What is that which hath\nbeen? It is that which shall be. And what is that which is done? It\nis that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.\nWho can speak and say, See, this is new? It hath been already of old\ntime, which was before us.\"[539] This he said either of those things\nof which he had just been speaking--the succession of generations,\nthe orbit of the sun, the course of rivers,--or else of all kinds of\ncreatures that are born and die. For men were before us, are with\nus, and shall be after us; and so all living things and all plants.\nEven monstrous and irregular productions, though differing from one\nanother, and though some are reported as solitary instances, yet\nresemble one another generally, in so far as they are miraculous and\nmonstrous, and, in this sense, have been, and shall be, and are no\nnew and recent things under the sun. However, some would understand\nthese words as meaning that in the predestination of God all things\nhave already existed, and that thus there is no new thing under the\nsun. At all events, far be it from any true believer to suppose that\nby these words of Solomon those cycles are meant, in which, according\nto those philosophers, the same periods and events of time are\nrepeated; as if, for example, the philosopher Plato, having taught\nin the school at Athens which is called the Academy, so, numberless\nages before, at long but certain intervals, this same Plato, and the\nsame school, and the same disciples existed, and so also are to be\nrepeated during the countless cycles that are yet be be,--far be it,\nI say, from us to believe this. For once Christ died for our sins;\nand, rising from the dead, He dieth no more. \"Death hath no more\ndominion over Him;\"[540] and we ourselves after the resurrection\nshall be \"ever with the Lord,\"[541] to whom we now say, as the\nsacred Psalmist dictates, \"Thou shalt keep us, O Lord, Thou shalt\npreserve us from this generation.\"[542] And that too which follows,\nis, I think, appropriate enough: \"The wicked walk _in a circle_;\"\nnot because their life is to recur by means of these circles, which\nthese philosophers imagine, but because the path in which their false\ndoctrine now runs is circuitous.\n\n\n  14. _Of the creation of the human race in time, and how this was\n      effected without any new design or change of purpose on God's\n      part._\n\nWhat wonder is it if, entangled in these circles, they find neither\nentrance nor egress? For they know not how the human race, and this\nmortal condition of ours, took its origin, nor how it will be brought\nto an end, since they cannot penetrate the inscrutable wisdom of God.\nFor, though Himself eternal, and without beginning, yet He caused\ntime to have a beginning; and man, whom He had not previously made,\nHe made in time, not from a new and sudden resolution, but by His\nunchangeable and eternal design. Who can search out the unsearchable\ndepth of this purpose, who can scrutinize the inscrutable wisdom,\nwherewith God, without change of will, created man, who had never\nbefore been, and gave him an existence in time, and increased the\nhuman race from one individual? For the Psalmist himself, when he had\nfirst said, \"Thou shalt keep us, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve us from\nthis generation for ever,\" and had then rebuked those whose foolish\nand impious doctrine preserves for the soul no eternal deliverance\nand blessedness, adds immediately, \"The wicked walk in a circle.\"\nThen, as if it were said to him, \"What then do you believe, feel,\nknow? Are we to believe that it suddenly occurred to God to create\nman, whom He had never before made in a past eternity,--God, to\nwhom nothing new can occur, and in whom is no changeableness?\" the\nPsalmist goes on to reply, as if addressing God Himself, \"According\nto the depth of Thy wisdom Thou hast multiplied the children of men.\"\nLet men, he seems to say, fancy what they please, let them conjecture\nand dispute as seems good to them, but Thou hast multiplied the\nchildren of men according to the depth of thy wisdom, which no man\ncan comprehend. For this is a depth indeed, that God always has been,\nand that man, whom He had never made before, He willed to make in\ntime, and this without changing His design and will.\n\n\n  15. _Whether we are to believe that God, as He has always been\n      sovereign Lord, has always had creatures over whom He exercised\n      His sovereignty; and in what sense we can say that the creature\n      has always been, and yet cannot say it is co-eternal._\n\nFor my own part, indeed, as I dare not say that there ever was a time\nwhen the Lord God was not Lord,[543] so I ought not to doubt that man\nhad no existence before time, and was first created in time. But when\nI consider what God could be the Lord of, if there was not always\nsome creature, I shrink from making any assertion, remembering my\nown insignificance, and that it is written, \"What man is he that can\nknow the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of the Lord\nis? For the thoughts of mortal men are timid, and our devices are\nbut uncertain. For the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and\nthe earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many\nthings.\"[544] Many things certainly do I muse upon in this earthly\ntabernacle, because the one thing which is true among the many, or\nbeyond the many, I cannot find. If, then, among these many thoughts,\nI say that there have always been creatures for Him to be Lord of,\nwho is always and ever has been Lord, but that these creatures have\nnot always been the same, but succeeded one another (for we would not\nseem to say that any is co-eternal with the Creator, an assertion\ncondemned equally by faith and sound reason), I must take care lest I\nfall into the absurd and ignorant error of maintaining that by these\nsuccessions and changes mortal creatures have always existed, whereas\nthe immortal creatures had not begun to exist until the date of our\nown world, when the angels were created; if at least the angels are\nintended by that light which was first made, or, rather, by that\nheaven of which it is said, \"In the beginning God created the heavens\nand the earth.\"[545] The angels at least did not exist before they\nwere created; for if we say that they have always existed, we shall\nseem to make them co-eternal with the Creator. Again, if I say that\nthe angels were not created in time, but existed before all times,\nas those over whom God, who has ever been Sovereign, exercised His\nsovereignty, then I shall be asked whether, if they were created\nbefore all time, they, being creatures, could possibly always\nexist. It may perhaps be replied, Why not _always_, since that which\nis in all time may very properly be said to be \"always?\" Now, so\ntrue is it that these angels have existed in all time, that even\nbefore time was, they were created; if at least time began with the\nheavens, and the angels existed before the heavens. And if time was\neven before the heavenly bodies, not indeed marked by hours, days,\nmonths, and years,--for these measures of time's periods which are\ncommonly and properly called times, did manifestly begin with the\nmotion of the heavenly bodies, and so God said, when He appointed\nthem, \"Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for\nyears,\"[546]--if, I say, time was before these heavenly bodies by\nsome changing movement, whose parts succeeded one another and could\nnot exist simultaneously, and if there was some such movement among\nthe angels which necessitated the existence of time, and that they\nfrom their very creation should be subject to these temporal changes,\nthen they have existed in all time, for time came into being along\nwith them. And who will say that what was in all time, was not always?\n\nBut if I make such a reply, it will be said to me, How, then, are\nthey not co-eternal with the Creator, if He and they always have\nbeen? How even can they be said to have been created, if we are to\nunderstand that they have always existed? What shall we reply to\nthis? Shall we say that both statements are true? that they always\nhave been, since they have been in all time, they being created\nalong with time, or time along with them, and yet that also they\nwere created? For, similarly, we will not deny that time itself was\ncreated, though no one doubts that time has been in all time; for if\nit has not been in all time, then there was a time when there was no\ntime. But the most foolish person could not make such an assertion.\nFor we can reasonably say there was a time when Rome was not; there\nwas a time when Jerusalem was not; there was a time when Abraham was\nnot; there was a time when man was not, and so on: in fine, if the\nworld was not made at the commencement of time, but after some time\nhad elapsed, we can say there was a time when the world was not.\nBut to say there was a time when time was not, is as absurd as to\nsay there was a man when there was no man; or, this world was when\nthis world was not. For if we are not referring to the same object,\nthe form of expression may be used, as, there was another man when\nthis man was not. Thus we can reasonably say there was another time\nwhen this time was not; but not the merest simpleton could say there\nwas a time when there was no time. As, then, we say that time was\ncreated, though we also say that it always has been, since in all\ntime time has been, so it does not follow that if the angels have\nalways been, they were therefore not created. For we say that they\nhave always been, because they have been in all time; and we say\nthey have been in all time, because time itself could no wise be\nwithout them. For where there is no creature whose changing movements\nadmit of succession, there cannot be time at all. And consequently,\neven if they have always existed, they were created; neither, if\nthey have always existed, are they therefore co-eternal with the\nCreator. For He has always existed in unchangeable eternity; while\nthey were created, and are said to have been always, because they\nhave been in all time, time being impossible without the creature.\nBut time passing away by its changefulness, cannot be co-eternal\nwith changeless eternity. And consequently, though the immortality\nof the angels does not pass in time, does not become past as if now\nit were not, nor has a future as if it were not yet, still their\nmovements, which are the basis of time, do pass from future to past;\nand therefore they cannot be co-eternal with the Creator, in whose\nmovement we cannot say that there has been that which now is not, or\nshall be that which is not yet. Wherefore, if God always has been\nLord, He has always had creatures under His dominion,--creatures,\nhowever, not begotten of Him, but created by Him out of nothing;\nnor co-eternal with Him, for He was before them, though at no time\nwithout them, because He preceded them, not by the lapse of time,\nbut by His abiding eternity. But if I make this reply to those who\ndemand how He was always Creator, always Lord, if there were not\nalways a subject creation; or how this was created, and not rather\nco-eternal with its Creator, if it always was, I fear I may be\naccused of recklessly affirming what I know not, instead of teaching\nwhat I know. I return, therefore, to that which our Creator has seen\nfit that we should know; and those things which He has allowed the\nabler men to know in this life, or has reserved to be known in the\nnext by the perfected saints, I acknowledge to be beyond my capacity.\nBut I have thought it right to discuss these matters without making\npositive assertions, that they who read may be warned to abstain from\nhazardous questions, and may not deem themselves fit for everything.\nLet them rather endeavour to obey the wholesome injunction of the\napostle, when he says, \"For I say, through the grace given unto me,\nto every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly\nthan he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath\ndealt to every man the measure of faith.\"[547] For if an infant\nreceive nourishment suited to its strength, it becomes capable, as it\ngrows, of taking more; but if its strength and capacity be overtaxed,\nit dwines away in place of growing.\n\n\n     16. _How we are to understand God's promise of life eternal,\n            which was uttered before the \"eternal times.\"_\n\nI own that I do not know what ages passed before the human race was\ncreated, yet I have no doubt that no created thing is co-eternal with\nthe Creator. But even the apostle speaks of time as eternal, and this\nwith reference, not to the future, but, which is more surprising, to\nthe past. For he says, \"In hope of eternal life, which God that cannot\nlie promised before the eternal times, but hath in due times manifested\nHis word.\"[548] You see he says that in the past there have been\neternal times, which, however, were not co-eternal with God. And since\nGod before these eternal times not only existed, but also \"promised\"\nlife eternal, which He manifested in its own times (that is to say, in\ndue times), what else is this than His word? For this is life eternal.\nBut then, how did He promise; for the promise was made to men, and yet\nthey had no existence before eternal times? Does this not mean that,\nin His own eternity, and in His co-eternal word, that which was to be\nin its own time was already predestined and fixed?\n\n\n  17. _What defence is made by sound faith regarding God's\n      unchangeable counsel and will, against the reasonings of those\n      who hold that the works of God are eternally repeated in\n      revolving cycles that restore all things as they were._\n\nOf this, too, I have no doubt, that before the first man was created,\nthere never had been a man at all, neither this same man himself\nrecurring by I know not what cycles, and having made I know not\nhow many revolutions, nor any other of similar nature. From this\nbelief I am not frightened by philosophical arguments, among which\nthat is reckoned the most acute which is founded on the assertion\nthat the infinite cannot be comprehended by any mode of knowledge.\nConsequently, they argue, God has in His own mind finite conceptions\nof all finite things which He makes. Now it cannot be supposed that\nHis goodness was ever idle; for if it were, there should be ascribed\nto Him an awakening to activity in time, from a past eternity of\ninactivity, as if He repented of an idleness that had no beginning,\nand proceeded, therefore, to make a beginning of work. This being the\ncase, they say it must be that the same things are always repeated,\nand that as they pass, so they are destined always to return, whether\namidst all these changes the world remains the same,--the world which\nhas always been, and yet was created,--or that the world in these\nrevolutions is perpetually dying out and being renewed; otherwise,\nif we point to a time when the works of God were begun, it would be\nbelieved that He considered His past eternal leisure to be inert and\nindolent, and therefore condemned and altered it as displeasing to\nHimself. Now if God is supposed to have been indeed always making\ntemporal things, but different from one another, and one after the\nother, so that He thus came at last to make man, whom He had never\nmade before, then it may seem that He made man not with knowledge\n(for they suppose no knowledge can comprehend the infinite succession\nof creatures), but at the dictate of the hour, as it struck Him at\nthe moment, with a sudden and accidental change of mind. On the\nother hand, say they, if those cycles be admitted, and if we suppose\nthat the same temporal things are repeated, while the world either\nremains identical through all these rotations, or else dies away and\nis renewed, then there is ascribed to God neither the slothful ease\nof a past eternity, nor a rash and unforeseen creation. And if the\nsame things be not thus repeated in cycles, then they cannot by any\nscience or prescience be comprehended in their endless diversity.\nEven though reason could not refute, faith would smile at these\nargumentations, with which the godless endeavour to turn our simple\npiety from the right way, that we may walk with them \"in a circle.\"\nBut by the help of the Lord our God, even reason, and that readily\nenough, shatters these revolving circles which conjecture frames.\nFor that which specially leads these men astray to prefer their own\ncircles to the straight path of truth, is, that they measure by\ntheir own human, changeable, and narrow intellect the divine mind,\nwhich is absolutely unchangeable, infinitely capacious, and, without\nsuccession of thought, counting all things without number. So that\nsaying of the apostle comes true of them, for, \"comparing themselves\nwith themselves, they do not understand.\"[549] For because they do,\nin virtue of a new purpose, whatever new thing has occurred to them\nto be done (their minds being changeable), they conclude it is so\nwith God; and thus compare, not God,--for they cannot conceive God,\nbut think of one like themselves when they think of Him,--not God,\nbut themselves, and not with Him, but with themselves. For our part,\nwe dare not believe that God is affected in one way when He works,\nin another when He rests. Indeed, to say that He is affected at all,\nis an abuse of language, since it implies that there comes to be\nsomething in His nature which was not there before. For he who is\naffected is acted upon, and whatever is acted upon is changeable. In\nHis leisure, therefore, is no laziness, indolence, inactivity; as in\nHis work is no labour, effort, industry. He can act while He reposes,\nand repose while He acts. He can begin a new work with (not a new,\nbut) an eternal design; and what He has not made before, He does\nnot now begin to make because He repents of His former repose. But\nwhen one speaks of His former repose and subsequent operation (and\nI know not how men can understand these things), this \"former\" and\n\"subsequent\" are applied only to the things created, which formerly\ndid not exist, and subsequently came into existence. But in God the\nformer purpose is not altered and obliterated by the subsequent and\ndifferent purpose, but by one and the same eternal and unchangeable\nwill He effected regarding the things He created, both that formerly,\nso long as they were not, they should not be, and that subsequently,\nwhen they began to be, they should come into existence. And thus,\nperhaps, He would show in a very striking way, to those who have eyes\nfor such things, how independent He is of what He makes, and how it\nis of His own gratuitous goodness He creates, since from eternity He\ndwelt without creatures in no less perfect a blessedness.\n\n\n    18. _Against those who assert that things that are infinite_[550]\n           _cannot be comprehended by the knowledge of God._\n\nAs for their other assertion, that God's knowledge cannot comprehend\nthings infinite, it only remains for them to affirm, in order that\nthey may sound the depths of their impiety, that God does not know\nall numbers. For it is very certain that they are infinite; since,\nno matter at what number you suppose an end to be made, this number\ncan be, I will not say, increased by the addition of one more, but\nhowever great it be, and however vast be the multitude of which it\nis the rational and scientific expression, it can still be not only\ndoubled, but even multiplied. Moreover, each number is so defined by\nits own properties, that no two numbers are equal. They are therefore\nboth unequal and different from one another; and while they are\nsimply finite, collectively they are infinite. Does God, therefore,\nnot know numbers on account of this infinity; and does His knowledge\nextend only to a certain height in numbers, while of the rest He is\nignorant? Who is so left to himself as to say so? Yet they can hardly\npretend to put numbers out of the question, or maintain that they\nhave nothing to do with the knowledge of God; for Plato,[551] their\ngreat authority, represents God as framing the world on numerical\nprinciples; and in our books also it is said to God, \"Thou hast\nordered all things in number, and measure, and weight.\"[552] The\nprophet also says, \"Who bringeth out their host by number.\"[553] And\nthe Saviour says in the Gospel, \"The very hairs of your head are all\nnumbered.\"[554] Far be it, then, from us to doubt that all number\nis known to Him \"whose understanding,\" according to the Psalmist,\n\"is infinite.\"[555] The infinity of number, though there be no\nnumbering of infinite numbers, is yet not incomprehensible by Him\nwhose understanding is infinite. And thus, if everything which is\ncomprehended is defined or made finite by the comprehension of him\nwho knows it, then all infinity is in some ineffable way made finite\nto God, for it is comprehensible by His knowledge. Wherefore, if the\ninfinity of numbers cannot be infinite to the knowledge of God, by\nwhich it is comprehended, what are we poor creatures that we should\npresume to fix limits to His knowledge, and say that unless the same\ntemporal things be repeated by the same periodic revolutions, God\ncannot either foreknow His creatures that He may make them, or know\nthem when He has made them? God, whose knowledge is simply manifold,\nand uniform in its variety, comprehends all incomprehensibles with\nso incomprehensible a comprehension, that though He willed always\nto make His later works novel and unlike what went before them, He\ncould not produce them without order and foresight, nor conceive them\nsuddenly, but by His eternal foreknowledge.\n\n\n           19. _Of worlds without end, or ages of ages._[556]\n\nI do not presume to determine whether God does so, and whether\nthese times which are called \"ages of ages\" are joined together\nin a continuous series, and succeed one another with a regulated\ndiversity, and leave exempt from their vicissitudes only those who\nare freed from their misery, and abide without end in a blessed\nimmortality; or whether these are called \"ages of ages,\" that we may\nunderstand that the ages remain unchangeable in God's unwavering\nwisdom, and are the efficient causes, as it were, of those ages\nwhich are being spent in time. Possibly \"ages\" is used for \"age,\"\nso that nothing else is meant by \"ages of ages\" than by \"age of\nage,\" as nothing else is meant by \"heavens of heavens\" than by\n\"heaven of heaven.\" For God called the firmament, above which are\nthe waters, \"Heaven,\" and yet the psalm says, \"Let the waters that\nare above the _heavens_ praise the name of the Lord.\"[557] Which of\nthese two meanings we are to attach to \"ages of ages,\" or whether\nthere is not some other and better meaning still, is a very profound\nquestion; and the subject we are at present handling presents no\nobstacle to our meanwhile deferring the discussion of it, whether\nwe may be able to determine anything about it, or may only be made\nmore cautious by its further treatment, so as to be deterred from\nmaking any rash affirmations in a matter of such obscurity. For at\npresent we are disputing the opinion that affirms the existence\nof those periodic revolutions by which the same things are always\nrecurring at intervals of time. Now, whichever of these suppositions\nregarding the \"ages of ages\" be the true one, it avails nothing for\nthe substantiating of those cycles; for whether the ages of ages be\nnot a repetition of the same world, but different worlds succeeding\none another in a regulated connection, the ransomed souls abiding in\nwell-assured bliss without any recurrence of misery, or whether the\nages of ages be the eternal causes which rule what shall be and is\nin time, it equally follows, that those cycles which bring round the\nsame things have no existence; and nothing more thoroughly explodes\nthem than the fact of the eternal life of the saints.\n\n\n  20. _Of the impiety of those who assert that the souls which enjoy\n      true and perfect blessedness, must yet again and again in these\n      periodic revolutions return to labour and misery._\n\nWhat pious ears could bear to hear that after a life spent in so\nmany and severe distresses (if, indeed, that should be called a\nlife at all which is rather a death, so utter that the love of this\npresent death makes us fear that death which delivers us from it),\nthat after evils so disastrous, and miseries of all kinds have at\nlength been expiated and finished by the help of true religion and\nwisdom, and when we have thus attained to the vision of God, and\nhave entered into bliss by the contemplation of spiritual light\nand participation in His unchangeable immortality, which we burn to\nattain,--that we must at some time lose all this, and that they who\ndo lose it are cast down from that eternity, truth, and felicity to\ninfernal mortality and shameful foolishness, and are involved in\naccursed woes, in which God is lost, truth held in detestation, and\nhappiness sought in iniquitous impurities? and that this will happen\nendlessly again and again, recurring at fixed intervals, and in\nregularly returning periods? and that this everlasting and ceaseless\nrevolution of definite cycles, which remove and restore true misery\nand deceitful bliss in turn, is contrived in order that God may be\nable to know His own works, since on the one hand He cannot rest from\ncreating, and on the other, cannot know the infinite number of His\ncreatures, if He always makes creatures? Who, I say, can listen to\nsuch things? Who can accept or suffer them to be spoken? Were they\ntrue, it were not only more prudent to keep silence regarding them,\nbut even (to express myself as best I can) it were the part of wisdom\nnot to know them. For if in the future world we shall not remember\nthese things, and by this oblivion be blessed, why should we now\nincrease our misery, already burdensome enough, by the knowledge of\nthem? If, on the other hand, the knowledge of them will be forced\nupon us hereafter, now at least let us remain in ignorance, that in\nthe present expectation we may enjoy a blessedness which the future\nreality is not to bestow; since in this life we are expecting to\nobtain life everlasting, but in the world to come are to discover it\nto be blessed, but not everlasting.\n\nAnd if they maintain that no one can attain to the blessedness of\nthe world to come, unless in this life he has been indoctrinated in\nthose cycles in which bliss and misery relieve one another, how do\nthey avow that the more a man loves God, the more readily he attains\nto blessedness,--they who teach what paralyzes love itself? For who\nwould not be more remiss and lukewarm in his love for a person whom\nhe thinks he shall be forced to abandon, and whose truth and wisdom\nhe shall come to hate; and this, too, after he has quite attained\nto the utmost and most blissful knowledge of Him that he is capable\nof? Can any one be faithful in his love, even to a human friend, if\nhe knows that he is destined to become his enemy?[558] God forbid\nthat there be any truth in an opinion which threatens us with a\nreal misery that is never to end, but is often and endlessly to be\ninterrupted by intervals of fallacious happiness. For what happiness\ncan be more fallacious and false than that in whose blaze of truth\nwe yet remain ignorant that we shall be miserable, or in whose most\nsecure citadel we yet fear that we shall be so? For if, on the one\nhand, we are to be ignorant of coming calamity, then our present\nmisery is not so shortsighted, for it is assured of coming bliss.\nIf, on the other hand, the disaster that threatens is not concealed\nfrom us in the world to come, then the time of misery which is to be\nat last exchanged for a state of blessedness, is spent by the soul\nmore happily than its time of happiness, which is to end in a return\nto misery. And thus our expectation of unhappiness is happy, but of\nhappiness unhappy. And therefore, as we here suffer present ills, and\nhereafter fear ills that are imminent, it were truer to say that we\nshall always be miserable, than that we can some time be happy.\n\nBut these things are declared to be false by the loud testimony\nof religion and truth; for religion truthfully promises a true\nblessedness, of which we shall be eternally assured, and which cannot\nbe interrupted by any disaster. Let us therefore keep to the straight\npath, which is Christ, and, with Him as our Guide and Saviour, let\nus turn away in heart and mind from the unreal and futile cycles of\nthe godless. Porphyry, Platonist though he was, abjured the opinion\nof his school, that in these cycles souls are ceaselessly passing\naway and returning, either being struck with the extravagance of the\nidea, or sobered by his knowledge of Christianity. As I mentioned in\nthe tenth book,[559] he preferred saying that the soul, as it had\nbeen sent into the world that it might know evil, and be purged and\ndelivered from it, was never again exposed to such an experience\nafter it had once returned to the Father. And if he abjured the\ntenets of his school, how much more ought we Christians to abominate\nand avoid an opinion so unfounded and hostile to our faith? But\nhaving disposed of these cycles and escaped out of them, no necessity\ncompels us to suppose that the human race had no beginning in time,\non the ground that there is nothing new in nature which, by I know\nnot what cycles, has not at some previous period existed, and is\nnot hereafter to exist again. For if the soul, once delivered,\nas it never was before, is never to return to misery, then there\nhappens in its experience something which never happened before;\nand this, indeed, something of the greatest consequence, to wit,\nthe secure entrance into eternal felicity. And if in an immortal\nnature there can occur a novelty, which never has been, nor ever\nshall be, reproduced by any cycle, why is it disputed that the same\nmay occur in mortal natures? If they maintain that blessedness is\nno new experience to the soul, but only a return to that state in\nwhich it has been eternally, then at least its deliverance from\nmisery is something new, since, by their own showing, the misery\nfrom which it is delivered is itself, too, a new experience. And if\nthis new experience fell out by accident, and was not embraced in\nthe order of things appointed by Divine Providence, then where are\nthose determinate and measured cycles in which no new thing happens,\nbut all things are reproduced as they were before? If, however, this\nnew experience was embraced in that providential order of nature\n(whether the soul was exposed to the evil of this world for the\nsake of discipline, or fell into it by sin), then it is possible\nfor new things to happen which never happened before, and which yet\nare not extraneous to the order of nature. And if the soul is able\nby its own imprudence to create for itself a new misery, which was\nnot unforeseen by the Divine Providence, but was provided for in the\norder of nature along with the deliverance from it, how can we, even\nwith all the rashness of human vanity, presume to deny that God can\ncreate new things--new to the world, but not to Him--which He never\nbefore created, but yet foresaw from all eternity? If they say that\nit is indeed true that ransomed souls return no more to misery, but\nthat even so no new thing happens, since there always have been,\nnow are, and ever shall be a succession of ransomed souls, they must\nat least grant that in this case there are new souls to whom the\nmisery and the deliverance from it are new. For if they maintain that\nthose souls out of which new men are daily being made (from whose\nbodies, if they have lived wisely, they are so delivered that they\nnever return to misery) are not new, but have existed from eternity,\nthey must logically admit that they are infinite. For however great\na finite number of souls there were, that would not have sufficed\nto make perpetually new men from eternity,--men whose souls were to\nbe eternally freed from this mortal state, and never afterwards to\nreturn to it. And our philosophers will find it hard to explain how\nthere is an infinite number of souls in an order of nature which they\nrequire shall be finite, that it may be known by God.\n\nAnd now that we have exploded these cycles which were supposed to\nbring back the soul at fixed periods to the same miseries, what can\nseem more in accordance with godly reason than to believe that it is\npossible for God both to create new things never before created, and\nin doing so, to preserve His will unaltered? But whether the number\nof eternally redeemed souls can be continually increased or not, let\nthe philosophers themselves decide, who are so subtle in determining\nwhere infinity cannot be admitted. For our own part, our reasoning\nholds in either case. For if the number of souls can be indefinitely\nincreased, what reason is there to deny that what had never before\nbeen created, could be created? since the number of ransomed souls\nnever existed before, and has yet not only been once made, but will\nnever cease to be anew coming into being. If, on the other hand,\nit be more suitable that the number of eternally ransomed souls be\ndefinite, and that this number will never be increased, yet this\nnumber, whatever it be, did assuredly never exist before, and it\ncannot increase, and reach the amount it signifies, without having\nsome beginning; and this beginning never before existed. That this\nbeginning, therefore, might be, the first man was created.\n\n\n   21. _That there was created at first but one individual, and that\n                  the human race was created in him._\n\nNow that we have solved, as well as we could, this very difficult\nquestion about the eternal God creating new things, without any\nnovelty of will, it is easy to see how much better it is that God was\npleased to produce the human race from the one individual whom He\ncreated, than if He had originated it in several men. For as to the\nother animals, He created some solitary, and naturally seeking lonely\nplaces,--as the eagles, kites, lions, wolves, and such like; others\ngregarious, which herd together, and prefer to live in company,--as\npigeons, starlings, stags, and little fallow deer, and the like: but\nneither class did He cause to be propagated from individuals, but\ncalled into being several at once. Man, on the other hand, whose\nnature was to be a mean between the angelic and bestial, He created\nin such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as\nhis rightful Lord, and piously kept His commandments, he should pass\ninto the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention\nof death,[560] a blessed and endless immortality; but if he offended\nthe Lord his God by a proud and disobedient use of his free will,\nhe should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do,--the\nslave of appetite, and doomed to eternal punishment after death. And\ntherefore God created only one single man, not, certainly, that he\nmight be a solitary bereft of all society, but that by this means the\nunity of society and the bond of concord might be more effectually\ncommended to him, men being bound together not only by similarity of\nnature, but by family affection. And indeed He did not even create\nthe woman that was to be given him as his wife, as he created the\nman, but created her out of the man, that the whole human race might\nderive from one man.\n\n\n  22. _That God foreknew that the first man would sin, and that He at\n      the same time foresaw how large a multitude of godly persons\n      would by His grace be translated to the fellowship of the angels._\n\nAnd God was not ignorant that man would sin, and that, being himself\nmade subject now to death, he would propagate men doomed to die, and\nthat these mortals would run to such enormities in sin, that even the\nbeasts devoid of rational will, and who were created in numbers from\nthe waters and the earth, would live more securely and peaceably with\ntheir own kind than men, who had been propagated from one individual\nfor the very purpose of commending concord. For not even lions or\ndragons have ever waged with their kind such wars as men have waged\nwith one another.[561] But God foresaw also that by His grace a\npeople would be called to adoption, and that they, being justified\nby the remission of their sins, would be united by the Holy Ghost\nto the holy angels in eternal peace, the last enemy, death, being\ndestroyed; and He knew that this people would derive profit from the\nconsideration that God had caused all men to be derived from one, for\nthe sake of showing how highly He prizes unity in a multitude.\n\n\n  23. _Of the nature of the human soul created in the image of God._\n\nGod, then, made man in His own image. For He created for him a soul\nendowed with reason and intelligence, so that he might excel all the\ncreatures of earth, air, and sea, which were not so gifted. And when\nHe had formed the man out of the dust of the earth, and had willed\nthat his soul should be such as I have said,--whether He had already\nmade it, and now by breathing imparted it to man, or rather made it\nby breathing, so that that breath which God made by breathing (for\nwhat else is \"to breathe\" than to make breath?) is the soul,[562]--He\nmade also a wife for him, to aid him in the work of generating his\nkind, and her He formed of a bone taken out of the man's side,\nworking in a divine manner. For we are not to conceive of this work\nin a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans,\nwho use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their\nartistic skill they may fashion some material object. God's hand is\nGod's power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results.\nBut this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by\ncustomary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He\nunderstands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and\nbecause they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were\ncreated, they are sceptical regarding them--as if the very things\nwhich they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births,\nwould seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of\nthem; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to\nphysical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind.\n\n\n  24. _Whether the angels can be said to be the creators of any, even\n                         the least creature._\n\nBut in this book we have nothing to do with those who do not believe\nthat the divine mind made or cares for this world. As for those who\nbelieve their own Plato, that all mortal animals--among whom man\nholds the pre-eminent place, and is near to the gods themselves--were\ncreated not by that most high God who made the world, but by other\nlesser gods created by the Supreme, and exercising a delegated power\nunder His control,--if only those persons be delivered from the\nsuperstition which prompts them to seek a plausible reason for paying\ndivine honours and sacrificing to these gods as their creators, they\nwill easily be disentangled also from this their error. For it is\nblasphemy to believe or to say (even before it can be understood)\nthat any other than God is creator of any nature, be it never so\nsmall and mortal. And as for the angels, whom those Platonists prefer\nto call gods, although they do, so far as they are permitted and\ncommissioned, aid in the production of the things around us, yet not\non that account are we to call them creators, any more than we call\ngardeners the creators of fruits and trees.\n\n\n     25. _That God alone is the Creator of every kind of creature,\n                     whatever its nature or form._\n\nFor whereas there is one form which is given from without to every\nbodily substance,--such as the form which is constructed by potters\nand smiths, and that class of artists who paint and fashion forms\nlike the body of animals,--but another and internal form which is not\nitself constructed, but, as the efficient cause, produces not only\nthe natural bodily forms, but even the life itself of the living\ncreatures, and which proceeds from the secret and hidden choice of\nan intelligent and living nature,--let that first-mentioned form be\nattributed to every artificer, but this latter to one only, God, the\nCreator and Originator who made the world itself and the angels,\nwithout the help of world or angels. For the same divine and, so\nto speak, creative energy, which cannot be made, but makes, and\nwhich gave to the earth and sky their roundness,--this same divine,\neffective, and creative energy gave their roundness to the eye and\nto the apple; and the other natural objects which we anywhere see,\nreceived also their form, not from without, but from the secret and\nprofound might of the Creator, who said, \"Do not I fill heaven and\nearth?\"[563] and whose wisdom it is that \"reacheth from one end\nto another mightily; and sweetly doth she order all things.\"[564]\nWherefore I know not what kind of aid the angels, themselves created\nfirst, afforded to the Creator in making other things. I cannot\nascribe to them what perhaps they cannot do, neither ought I to deny\nthem such faculty as they have. But, by their leave, I attribute the\ncreating and originating work which gave being to all natures to God,\nto whom they themselves thankfully ascribe their existence. We do not\ncall gardeners the creators of their fruits, for we read, \"Neither\nis he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that\ngiveth the increase.\"[565] Nay, not even the earth itself do we call\na creator, though she seems to be the prolific mother of all things\nwhich she aids in germinating and bursting forth from the seed, and\nwhich she keeps rooted in her own breast; for we likewise read,\n\"God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed\nhis own body.\"[566] We ought not even to call a woman the creatress\nof her own offspring; for He rather is its creator who said to His\nservant, \"Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee.\"[567] And\nalthough the various mental emotions of a pregnant woman do produce\nin the fruit of her womb similar qualities,--as Jacob with his\npeeled wands caused piebald sheep to be produced,--yet the mother\nas little creates her offspring, as she created herself. Whatever\nbodily or seminal causes, then, may be used for the production of\nthings, either by the co-operation of angels, men, or the lower\nanimals, or by sexual generation; and whatever power the desires\nand mental emotions of the mother have to produce in the tender and\nplastic f\u0153tus, corresponding lineaments and colours; yet the natures\nthemselves, which are thus variously affected, are the production of\nnone but the most high God. It is His occult power which pervades\nall things, and is present in all without being contaminated, which\ngives being to all that is, and modifies and limits its existence;\nso that without Him it would not be thus or thus, nor would have any\nbeing at all.[568] If, then, in regard to that outward form which\nthe workman's hand imposes on his work, we do not say that Rome and\nAlexandria were built by masons and architects, but by the kings by\nwhose will, plan, and resources they were built, so that the one has\nRomulus, the other Alexander, for its founder; with how much greater\nreason ought we to say that God alone is the Author of all natures,\nsince He neither uses for His work any material which was not made\nby Him, nor any workmen who were not also made by Him, and since, if\nHe were, so to speak, to withdraw from created things His creative\npower, they would straightway relapse into the nothingness in which\nthey were before they were created? \"Before,\" I mean, in respect of\neternity, not of time. For what other creator could there be of time,\nthan He who created those things whose movements make time?[569]\n\n\n  26. _Of that opinion of the Platonists, that the angels were\n      themselves indeed created by God, but that afterwards they\n      created man's body._\n\nIt is obvious, that in attributing the creation of the other animals\nto those inferior gods who were made by the Supreme, he meant it to be\nunderstood that the immortal part was taken from God Himself, and that\nthese minor creators added the mortal part; that is to say, he meant\nthem to be considered the creators of our bodies, but not of our souls.\nBut since Porphyry maintains that if the soul is to be purified, all\nentanglement with a body must be escaped from; and at the same time\nagrees with Plato and the Platonists in thinking that those who have\nnot spent a temperate and honourable life return to mortal bodies as\ntheir punishment (to bodies of brutes in Plato's opinion, to human\nbodies in Porphyry's); it follows that those whom they would have us\nworship as our parents and authors, that they may plausibly call them\ngods, are, after all, but the forgers of our fetters and chains,--not\nour creators, but our jailers and turnkeys, who lock us up in the\nmost bitter and melancholy house of correction. Let the Platonists,\nthen, either cease menacing us with our bodies as the punishment of\nour souls, or preaching that we are to worship as gods those whose\nwork upon us they exhort us by all means in our power to avoid and\nescape from. But, indeed, both opinions are quite false. It is false\nthat souls return again to this life to be punished; and it is false\nthat there is any other creator of anything in heaven or earth, than\nHe who made the heaven and the earth. For if we live in a body only\nto expiate our sins, how says Plato in another place, that the world\ncould not have been the most beautiful and good, had it not been filled\nwith all kinds of creatures, mortal and immortal?[570] But if our\ncreation even as mortals be a divine benefit, how is it a punishment\nto be restored to a body, that is, to a divine benefit? And if God, as\nPlato continually maintains, embraced in His eternal intelligence the\nideas both of the universe and of all the animals, how, then, should\nHe not with His own hand make them all? Could He be unwilling to be\nthe constructor of works, the idea and plan of which called for His\nineffable and ineffably to be praised intelligence?\n\n\n  27. _That the whole plenitude of the human race was embraced in the\n      first man, and that God there saw the portion of it which was\n      to be honoured and rewarded, and that which was to be condemned\n      and punished._\n\nWith good cause, therefore, does the true religion recognise and\nproclaim that the same God who created the universal cosmos, created\nalso all the animals, souls as well as bodies. Among the terrestrial\nanimals man was made by Him in His own image, and, for the reason\nI have given, was made one individual, though he was not left\nsolitary. For there is nothing so social by nature, so unsocial by\nits corruption, as this race. And human nature has nothing more\nappropriate, either for the prevention of discord, or for the healing\nof it, where it exists, than the remembrance of that first parent\nof us all, whom God was pleased to create alone, that all men might\nbe derived from one, and that they might thus be admonished to\npreserve unity among their whole multitude. But from the fact that\nthe woman was made for him from his side, it was plainly meant that\nwe should learn how dear the bond between man and wife should be.\nThese works of God do certainly seem extraordinary, because they are\nthe first works. They who do not believe them, ought not to believe\nany prodigies; for these would not be called prodigies did they not\nhappen out of the ordinary course of nature. But, is it possible that\nanything should happen in vain, however hidden be its cause, in so\ngrand a government of divine providence? One of the sacred Psalmists\nsays, \"Come, behold the works of the Lord, what prodigies He hath\nwrought in the earth.\"[571] Why God made woman out of man's side, and\nwhat this first prodigy prefigured, I shall, with God's help, tell\nin another place. But at present, since this book must be concluded,\nlet us merely say that in this first man, who was created in the\nbeginning, there was laid the foundation, not indeed evidently, but\nin God's foreknowledge, of these two cities or societies, so far\nas regards the human race. For from that man all men were to be\nderived--some of them to be associated with the good angels in their\nreward, others with the wicked in punishment; all being ordered by\nthe secret yet just judgment of God. For since it is written, \"All\nthe paths of the Lord are mercy and truth,\"[572] neither can His\ngrace be unjust, nor His justice cruel.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[520] _Vitium_: perhaps \"fault\" most nearly embraces all the uses of\nthis word.\n\n[521] Essentia.\n\n[522] Ex. iii. 14.\n\n[523] Quintilian calls it _dura_.\n\n[524] With this may be compared the argument of Socrates in the\n_Gorgias_, in which it is shown that to escape punishment is worse\nthan to suffer it, and that the greatest of evils is to do wrong and\nnot be chastised.\n\n[525] Eccles. x. 13.\n\n[526] Specie.\n\n[527] Ps. xix. 12.\n\n[528] C. 13.\n\n[529] Rom. v. 5.\n\n[530] Ps. lxxiii. 28.\n\n[531] _De Deo Socratis._\n\n[532] Augustine no doubt refers to the interesting account given by\nCritias, near the beginning of the _Tim\u00e6us_, of the conversation of\nSolon with the Egyptian priests.\n\n[533] Augustine here follows the chronology of Eusebius, who reckons\n5611 years from the Creation to the taking of Rome by the Goths;\nadopting the Septuagint version of the patriarchal ages.\n\n[534] See above, viii. 5.\n\n[535] It is not apparent to what Augustine refers. The Arcadians,\naccording to Macrobius (_Saturn._ i. 7), divided their year into\nthree months, and the Egyptians divided theirs into three seasons:\neach of these seasons having four months, it is possible that\nAugustine may have referred to this. See Wilkinson's excursus on the\nEgyptian year, in Rawlinson's _Herod._ Book ii.\n\n[536] The former opinion was held by Democritus and his disciple\nEpicurus; the latter by Heraclitus, who supposed that \"God amused\nHimself\" by thus renewing worlds.\n\n[537] The Alexandrian Neo-Platonists endeavoured in this way to\nescape from the obvious meaning of the _Tim\u00e6us_.\n\n[538] Antoninus says (ii. 14), \"All things from eternity are of\nlike forms, and come round in a circle.\" Cf. also ix. 28, and the\nreferences to more ancient philosophical writers in Gataker's notes\non these passages.\n\n[539] Eccles. i. 9, 10. So Origen, _de Prin._ iii. 5, and ii. 3.\n\n[540] Rom. vi. 9.\n\n[541] 1 Thess. iv. 16.\n\n[542] Ps. xii. 7.\n\n[543] Cf. _de Trin._ v. 17.\n\n[544] Wisdom ix. 13-15.\n\n[545] Gen. i. 1.\n\n[546] Gen. i. 14.\n\n[547] Rom. xii. 3.\n\n[548] Titus i. 2, 3. Augustine here follows the version of Jerome,\nand not the Vulgate. Comp. _Contra Priscill._ 6, and _de Gen. c.\nMan._ iv. 4.\n\n[549] 2 Cor. x. 12. Here, and in _Enar. in_ Ps. xxxiv., and also in\n_Cont. Faust._ xxii. 47, Augustine follows the Greek, and not the\nVulgate.\n\n[550] _i.e._ indefinite, or an indefinite succession of things.\n\n[551] Again in the _Tim\u00e6us_.\n\n[552] Wisdom xi. 20.\n\n[553] Isa. xl. 26.\n\n[554] Matt. x. 30.\n\n[555] Ps. cxlvii. 5.\n\n[556] De s\u00e6culis s\u00e6culorum.\n\n[557] Ps. cxlviii. 4.\n\n[558] Cicero has the same (_de Amicitia_, 16): \"Quonam modo quisquam\namicus esse poterit, cui se putabit inimicum esse posse?\" He also\nquotes Scipio to the effect that no sentiment is more unfriendly to\nfriendship than this, that we should love as if some day we were to\nhate.\n\n[559] C. 30.\n\n[560] Coqu\u00e6us remarks that this is levelled against the Pelagians.\n\n[561]\n\n                                      \"Quando leoni\n          Fortior eripuit vitam leo? quo nemore unquam\n          Exspiravit aper majoris dentibus apri?\n          Indica tigris agit rabida cum tigride pacem\n          Perpetuam; s\u00e6vis inter se convenit ursis.\n          Ast homini,\" etc.\n                                        JUVENAL, _Sat._ xv. 160-5.\n\n--See also the very striking lines which precede these.\n\n[562] See this further discussed in _Gen. ad Lit._ vii. 35, and in\nDelitzsch's _Bibl. Psychology_.\n\n[563] Jer. xxiii. 24.\n\n[564] Wisdom viii. 1.\n\n[565] 1 Cor. iii. 7.\n\n[566] 1 Cor. xv. 38.\n\n[567] Jer. i. 5.\n\n[568] Compare _de Trin._ iii. 13-16.\n\n[569] See Book xi. 5.\n\n[570] \"The Deity, desirous of making the universe in all respects\nresemble the most beautiful and entirely perfect of intelligible\nobjects, formed it into one visible animal, containing within itself\nall the other animals with which it is naturally allied.\"--_Tim\u00e6us_,\nc. xi.\n\n[571] Ps. xlvi. 8.\n\n[572] Ps. xxv. 10.\n\n\n\n\n                           BOOK THIRTEENTH.\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n      IN THIS BOOK IT IS TAUGHT THAT DEATH IS PENAL, AND HAD ITS\n                         ORIGIN IN ADAM'S SIN.\n\n\n     1. _Of the fall of the first man, through which mortality has\n                           been contracted._\n\nHaving disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin\nof our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order\nrequires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say\nof the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death.\nFor God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that,\neven though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so\nmade them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an\nangelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the\nintervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited\non them with just sentence--which, too, has been spoken to in the\npreceding book.\n\n\n   2. _Of that death which can affect an immortal soul, and of that\n                    to which the body is subject._\n\nBut I see I must speak a little more carefully of the nature of\ndeath. For although the human soul is truly affirmed to be immortal,\nyet it also has a certain death of its own. For it is therefore\ncalled immortal, because, in a sense, it does not cease to live and\nto feel; while the body is called mortal, because it can be forsaken\nof all life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of\nthe soul takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body\nwhen the soul forsakes it. Therefore the death of both--that is, of\nthe whole man--occurs when the soul, forsaken by God, forsakes the\nbody. For, in this case, neither is God the life of the soul, nor\nthe soul the life of the body. And this death of the whole man is\nfollowed by that which, on the authority of the divine oracles, we\ncall the second death. This the Saviour referred to when He said,\n\"Fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.\"[573]\nAnd since this does not happen before the soul is so joined to its\nbody that they cannot be separated at all, it may be matter of wonder\nhow the body can be said to be killed by that death in which it is\nnot forsaken by the soul, but, being animated and rendered sensitive\nby it, is tormented. For in that penal and everlasting punishment,\nof which in its own place we are to speak more at large, the soul\nis justly said to die, because it does not live in connection with\nGod; but how can we say that the body is dead, seeing that it lives\nby the soul? For it could not otherwise feel the bodily torments\nwhich are to follow the resurrection. Is it because life of every\nkind is good, and pain an evil, that we decline to say that that body\nlives, in which the soul is the cause, not of life, but of pain?\nThe soul, then, lives by God when it lives well, for it cannot live\nwell unless by God working in it what is good; and the body lives by\nthe soul when the soul lives in the body, whether itself be living\nby God or no. For the wicked man's life in the body is a life not\nof the soul, but of the body, which even dead souls--that is, souls\nforsaken of God--can confer upon bodies, how little soever of their\nown proper life, by which they are immortal, they retain. But in\nthe last damnation, though man does not cease to feel, yet because\nthis feeling of his is neither sweet with pleasure nor wholesome\nwith repose, but painfully penal, it is not without reason called\ndeath rather than life. And it is called the second death because it\nfollows the first, which sunders the two cohering essences, whether\nthese be God and the soul, or the soul and the body. Of the first and\nbodily death, then, we may say that to the good it is good, and evil\nto the evil. But, doubtless, the second, as it happens to none of the\ngood, so it can be good for none.\n\n\n  3. _Whether death, which by the sin of our first parents has passed\n      upon all men, is the punishment of sin, even to the good._\n\nBut a question not to be shirked arises: Whether in very truth death,\nwhich separates soul and body, is good to the good?[574] For if it\nbe, how has it come to pass that such a thing should be the punishment\nof sin? For the first men would not have suffered death had they not\nsinned. How, then, can that be good to the good, which could not have\nhappened except to the evil? Then, again, if it could only happen to\nthe evil, to the good it ought not to be good, but non-existent. For\nwhy should there be any punishment where there is nothing to punish?\nWherefore we must say that the first men were indeed so created, that\nif they had not sinned, they would not have experienced any kind of\ndeath; but that, having become sinners, they were so punished with\ndeath, that whatsoever sprang from their stock should also be punished\nwith the same death. For nothing else could be born of them than that\nwhich they themselves had been. Their nature was deteriorated in\nproportion to the greatness of the condemnation of their sin, so that\nwhat existed as punishment in those who first sinned, became a natural\nconsequence in their children. For man is not produced by man, as he\nwas from the dust. For dust was the material out of which man was made:\nman is the parent by whom man is begotten. Wherefore earth and flesh\nare not the same thing, though flesh be made of earth. But as man the\nparent is, such is man the offspring. In the first man, therefore,\nthere existed the whole human nature, which was to be transmitted by\nthe woman to posterity, when that conjugal union received the divine\nsentence of its own condemnation; and what man was made, not when\ncreated, but when he sinned and was punished, this he propagated,\nso far as the origin of sin and death are concerned. For neither by\nsin nor its punishment was he himself reduced to that infantine and\nhelpless infirmity of body and mind which we see in children. For God\nordained that infants should begin the world as the young of beasts\nbegin it, since their parents had fallen to the level of the beasts\nin the fashion of their life and of their death; as it is written,\n\"Man when he was in honour understood not; he became like the beasts\nthat have no understanding.\"[575] Nay more, infants, we see, are even\nfeebler in the use and movement of their limbs, and more infirm to\nchoose and refuse, than the most tender offspring of other animals;\nas if the force that dwells in human nature were destined to surpass\nall other living things so much the more eminently, as its energy has\nbeen longer restrained, and the time of its exercise delayed, just as\nan arrow flies the higher the further back it has been drawn. To this\ninfantine imbecility[576] the first man did not fall by his lawless\npresumption and just sentence; but human nature was in his person\nvitiated and altered to such an extent, that he suffered in his members\nthe warring of disobedient lust, and became subject to the necessity\nof dying. And what he himself had become by sin and punishment, such\nhe generated those whom he begot; that is to say, subject to sin and\ndeath. And if infants are delivered from this bondage of sin by the\nRedeemer's grace, they can suffer only this death which separates soul\nand body; but being redeemed from the obligation of sin, they do not\npass to that second endless and penal death.\n\n\n   4. _Why death, the punishment of sin, is not withheld from those\n       who by the grace of regeneration are absolved from sin._\n\nIf, moreover, any one is solicitous about this point, how, if death\nbe the very punishment of sin, they whose guilt is cancelled by grace\ndo yet suffer death, this difficulty has already been handled and\nsolved in our other work which we have written on the baptism of\ninfants.[577] There it was said that the parting of soul and body was\nleft, though its connection with sin was removed, for this reason,\nthat if the immortality of the body followed immediately upon the\nsacrament of regeneration, faith itself would be thereby enervated.\nFor faith is then only faith when it waits in hope for what is not\nyet seen in substance. And by the vigour and conflict of faith, at\nleast in times past, was the fear of death overcome. Specially was\nthis conspicuous in the holy martyrs, who could have had no victory,\nno glory, to whom there could not even have been any conflict, if,\nafter the laver of regeneration, saints could not suffer bodily\ndeath. Who would not, then, in company with the infants presented\nfor baptism, run to the grace of Christ, that so he might not be\ndismissed from the body? And thus faith would not be tested with an\nunseen reward; and so would not even be faith, seeking and receiving\nan immediate recompense of its works. But now, by the greater and\nmore admirable grace of the Saviour, the punishment of sin is turned\nto the service of righteousness. For then it was proclaimed to man,\n\"If thou sinnest, thou shalt die;\" now it is said to the martyr,\n\"Die, that thou sin not.\" Then it was said, \"If ye transgress the\ncommandments, ye shall die;\" now it is said, \"If ye decline death,\nye transgress the commandment.\" That which was formerly set as an\nobject of terror, that men might not sin, is now to be undergone if\nwe would not sin. Thus, by the unutterable mercy of God, even the\nvery punishment of wickedness has become the armour of virtue, and\nthe penalty of the sinner becomes the reward of the righteous. For\nthen death was incurred by sinning, now righteousness is fulfilled\nby dying. In the case of the holy martyrs it is so; for to them the\npersecutor proposes the alternative, apostasy or death. For the\nrighteous prefer by believing to suffer what the first transgressors\nsuffered by not believing. For unless they had sinned, they would\nnot have died; but the martyrs sin if they do not die. The one died\nbecause they sinned, the others do not sin because they die. By the\nguilt of the first, punishment was incurred; by the punishment of\nthe second, guilt is prevented. Not that death, which was before an\nevil, has become something good, but only that God has granted to\nfaith this grace, that death, which is the admitted opposite to life,\nshould become the instrument by which life is reached.\n\n\n    5. _As the wicked make an ill use of the law, which is good, so\n         the good make a good use of death, which is an ill._\n\nThe apostle, wishing to show how hurtful a thing sin is, when grace\ndoes not aid us, has not hesitated to say that the strength of sin\nis that very law by which sin is prohibited. \"The sting of death\nis sin, and the strength of sin is the law.\"[578] Most certainly\ntrue; for prohibition increases the desire of illicit action, if\nrighteousness is not so loved that the desire of sin is conquered\nby that love. But unless divine grace aid us, we cannot love nor\ndelight in true righteousness. But lest the law should be thought to\nbe an evil, since it is called the strength of sin, the apostle, when\ntreating a similar question in another place, says, \"The law indeed\nis holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that\nwhich is holy made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might\nappear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by\nthe commandment might become exceeding sinful.\"[579] _Exceeding_,\nhe says, because the transgression is more heinous when through the\nincreasing lust of sin the law itself also is despised. Why have we\nthought it worth while to mention this? For this reason, because, as\nthe law is not an evil when it increases the lust of those who sin,\nso neither is death a good thing when it increases the glory of those\nwho suffer it, since either the former is abandoned wickedly, and\nmakes transgressors, or the latter is embraced for the truth's sake,\nand makes martyrs. And thus the law is indeed good, because it is\nprohibition of sin, and death is evil because it is the wages of sin;\nbut as wicked men make an evil use not only of evil, but also of good\nthings, so the righteous make a good use not only of good, but also\nof evil things. Whence it comes to pass that the wicked make an ill\nuse of the law, though the law is good; and that the good die well,\nthough death is an evil.\n\n\n   6. _Of the evil of death in general, considered as the separation\n                          of soul and body._\n\nWherefore, as regards bodily death, that is, the separation of the\nsoul from the body, it is good unto none while it is being endured\nby those whom we say are in the article of death. For the very\nviolence with which body and soul are wrenched asunder, which in\nthe living had been conjoined and closely intertwined, brings with\nit a harsh experience, jarring horridly on nature so long as it\ncontinues, till there comes a total loss of sensation, which arose\nfrom the very interpenetration of spirit and flesh. And all this\nanguish is sometimes forestalled by one stroke of the body or sudden\nflitting of the soul, the swiftness of which prevents it from being\nfelt. But whatever that may be in the dying which with violently\npainful sensation robs of all sensation, yet, when it is piously\nand faithfully borne, it increases the merit of patience, but does\nnot make the name of punishment inapplicable. Death, proceeding by\nordinary generation from the first man, is the punishment of all who\nare born of him, yet, if it be endured for righteousness' sake, it\nbecomes the glory of those who are born again; and though death be\nthe award of sin, it sometimes secures that nothing be awarded to sin.\n\n\n       7. _Of the death which the unbaptized_[580] _suffer for the\n                        confession of Christ._\n\nFor whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this\nconfession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if\nthey were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said,\n\"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter\ninto the kingdom of God,\"[581] made also an exception in their\nfavour, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said,\n\"Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also\nbefore my Father which is in heaven;\"[582] and in another place,\n\"Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.\"[583] And\nthis explains the verse, \"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the\ndeath of His saints.\"[584] For what is more precious than a death\nby which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an\nhundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no\nlonger escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins\nblotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death,\nthough it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their\nlife by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an\nopportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure\nof the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in\nthat baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of\nthose who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have\nbeen the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He listeth, seeing\nthat they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in\nso sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious,\ntherefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ\nhas been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not\nhesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And\nprecious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally\nordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the\nproduction of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this\naccount should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted\nto such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the\ndivine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of\ndread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that\nsin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the\naward of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.\n\n\n   8. _That the saints, by suffering the first death for the truth's\n                   sake, are freed from the second._\n\nFor if we look at the matter a little more carefully, we shall see\nthat even when a man dies faithfully and laudably for the truth's\nsake, it is still death he is avoiding. For he submits to some part\nof death, for the very purpose of avoiding the whole, and the second\nand eternal death over and above. He submits to the separation of\nsoul and body, lest the soul be separated both from God and from the\nbody, and so the whole first death be completed, and the second death\nreceive him everlastingly. Wherefore death is indeed, as I said, good\nto none while it is being actually suffered, and while it is subduing\nthe dying to its power; but it is meritoriously endured for the sake\nof retaining or winning what _is_ good. And regarding what happens\nafter death, it is no absurdity to say that death is good to the\ngood, and evil to the evil. For the disembodied spirits of the just\nare at rest; but those of the wicked suffer punishment till their\nbodies rise again,--those of the just to life everlasting, and of the\nothers to death eternal, which is called the second death.\n\n\n  9. _Whether we should say that the moment of death, in which\n      sensation ceases, occurs in the experience of the dying or in\n      that of the dead._\n\nThe point of time in which the souls of the good and evil are\nseparated from the body, are we to say it is after death, or in death\nrather? If it is after death, then it is not death which is good or\nevil, since death is done with and past, but it is the life which\nthe soul has now entered on. Death was an evil when it was present,\nthat is to say, when it was being suffered by the dying; for to them\nit brought with it a severe and grievous experience, which the good\nmake a good use of. But when death is past, how can that which no\nlonger is be either good or evil? Still further, if we examine the\nmatter more closely, we shall see that even that sore and grievous\npain which the dying experience is not death itself. For so long as\nthey have any sensation, they are certainly still alive; and, if\nstill alive, must rather be said to be in a state previous to death\nthan in death. For when death actually comes, it robs us of all\nbodily sensation, which, while death is only approaching, is painful.\nAnd thus it is difficult to explain how we speak of those who are not\nyet dead, but are agonized in their last and mortal extremity, as\nbeing in the article of death. Yet what else can we call them than\ndying persons? for when death which was imminent shall have actually\ncome, we can no longer call them dying but dead. No one, therefore,\nis dying unless living; since even he who is in the last extremity of\nlife, and, as we say, giving up the ghost, yet lives. The same person\nis therefore at once dying and living, but drawing near to death,\ndeparting from life; yet in life, because his spirit yet abides in\nthe body; not yet in death, because not yet has his spirit forsaken\nthe body. But if, when it has forsaken it, the man is not even then\nin death, but after death, who shall say when he is in death? On the\none hand, no one can be called dying, if a man cannot be dying and\nliving at the same time; and as long as the soul is in the body, we\ncannot deny that he is living. On the other hand, if the man who is\napproaching death be rather called dying, I know not who is living.\n\n\n    10. _Of the life of mortals, which is rather to be called death\n                              than life._\n\nFor no sooner do we begin to live in this dying body, than we begin\nto move ceaselessly towards death.[585] For in the whole course of\nthis life (if life we must call it) its mutability tends towards\ndeath. Certainly there is no one who is not nearer it this year than\nlast year, and to-morrow than to-day, and to-day than yesterday,\nand a short while hence than now, and now than a short while ago.\nFor whatever time we live is deducted from our whole term of life,\nand that which remains is daily becoming less and less; so that our\nwhole life is nothing but a race towards death, in which no one is\nallowed to stand still for a little space, or to go somewhat more\nslowly, but all are driven forwards with an impartial movement, and\nwith equal rapidity. For he whose life is short spends a day no more\nswiftly than he whose life is longer. But while the equal moments are\nimpartially snatched from both, the one has a nearer and the other\na more remote goal to reach with this their equal speed. It is one\nthing to make a longer journey, and another to walk more slowly.\nHe, therefore, who spends longer time on his way to death does not\nproceed at a more leisurely pace, but goes over more ground. Further,\nif every man begins to die, that is, is in death, as soon as death\nhas begun to show itself in him (by taking away life, to wit; for\nwhen life is all taken away, the man will be then not in death, but\nafter death), then he begins to die so soon as he begins to live.\nFor what else is going on in all his days, hours, and moments, until\nthis slow-working death is fully consummated? And then comes the time\n_after death_, instead of that in which life was being withdrawn,\nand which we called being _in death_. Man, then, is never in life\nfrom the moment he dwells in this dying rather than living body,--if,\nat least, he cannot be in life and death at once. Or rather, shall\nwe say, he is in both?--in life, namely, which he lives till all is\nconsumed; but in death also, which he dies as his life is consumed?\nFor if he is not in life, what is it which is consumed till all be\ngone? And if he is not in death, what is this consumption itself?\nFor when the whole of life has been consumed, the expression \"after\ndeath\" would be meaningless, had that consumption not been death. And\nif, when it has all been consumed, a man is not in death but after\ndeath, when is he in death, unless when life is being consumed away?\n\n\n    11. _Whether one can both be living and dead at the same time._\n\nBut if it is absurd to say that a man is in death before he reaches\ndeath (for to what is his course running as he passes through life,\nif already he is in death?), and if it outrage common usage to speak\nof a man being at once alive and dead, as much as it does so, to\nspeak of him as at once asleep and awake, it remains to be asked\nwhen a man is dying? For, before death comes, he is not dying but\nliving; and when death has come, he is not dying but dead. The one\nis before, the other after death. When, then, is he in death so that\nwe can say he is dying? For as there are three times, before death,\nin death, after death, so there are three states corresponding,\nliving, dying, dead. And it is very hard to define when a man is in\ndeath or dying, when he is neither living, which is before death,\nnor dead, which is after death, but dying, which is in death. For so\nlong as the soul is in the body, especially if consciousness remain,\nthe man certainly lives; for body and soul constitute the man. And\nthus, before death, he cannot be said to be in death; but when, on\nthe other hand, the soul has departed, and all bodily sensation is\nextinct, death is past, and the man is dead. Between these two states\nthe dying condition finds no place; for if a man yet lives, death has\nnot arrived; if he has ceased to live, death is past. Never, then,\nis he dying, that is, comprehended in the state of death. So also\nin the passing of time,--you try to lay your finger on the present,\nand cannot find it, because the present occupies no space, but is\nonly the transition of time from the future to the past. Must we\nthen conclude that there is thus no death of the body at all? For if\nthere is, where is it, since it is in no one, and no one can be in\nit? Since, indeed, if there is yet life, death is not yet; for this\nstate is before death, not in death: and if life has already ceased,\ndeath is not present; for this state is after death, not in death. On\nthe other hand, if there is no death before or after, what do we mean\nwhen we say \"after death,\" or \"before death?\" This is a foolish way\nof speaking if there is no death. And would that we had lived so well\nin Paradise that in very truth there were now no death! But not only\ndoes it now exist, but so grievous a thing is it, that no skill is\nsufficient either to explain or to escape it.\n\nLet us, then, speak in the customary way,--no man ought to speak\notherwise,--and let us call the time before death come, \"before death;\"\nas it is written, \"Praise no man before his death.\"[586] And when it\nhas happened, let us say that \"after death\" this or that took place.\nAnd of the present time let us speak as best we can, as when we say,\n\"He, when dying, made his will, and left this or that to such and such\npersons,\"--though, of course, he could not do so unless he were living,\nand did this rather before death than in death. And let us use the same\nphraseology as Scripture uses; for it makes no scruple of saying that\nthe dead are not after but in death. So that verse, \"For in death there\nis no remembrance of thee.\"[587] For until the resurrection men are\njustly said to be in death; as every one is said to be in sleep till\nhe awakes. However, though we can say of persons in sleep that they\nare sleeping, we cannot speak in this way of the dead, and say they\nare dying. For, so far as regards the death of the body, of which we\nare now speaking, one cannot say that those who are already separated\nfrom their bodies continue dying. But this, you see, is just what I\nwas saying,--that no words can explain how either the dying are said\nto live, or how the dead are said, even after death, to be in death.\nFor how can they be after death if they be in death, especially when we\ndo not even call them dying, as we call those in sleep, sleeping; and\nthose in languor, languishing; and those in grief, grieving; and those\nin life, living? And yet the dead, until they rise again, are said to\nbe in death, but cannot be called dying.\n\nAnd therefore I think it has not unsuitably nor inappropriately come\nto pass, though not by the intention of man, yet perhaps with divine\npurpose, that this Latin word _moritur_ cannot be declined by the\ngrammarians according to the rule followed by similar words. For\n_oritur_ gives the form _ortus est_ for the perfect; and all similar\nverbs form this tense from their perfect participles. But if we ask the\nperfect of _moritur_, we get the regular answer, _mortuus est_ with a\ndouble _u_. For thus _mortuus_ is pronounced, like _fatuus_, _arduus_,\n_conspicuus_, and similar words, which are not perfect participles but\nadjectives, and are declined without regard to tense. But _mortuus_,\nthough in form an adjective, is used as perfect participle, as if that\nwere to be declined which cannot be declined; and thus it has suitably\ncome to pass that, as the thing itself cannot in point of fact be\ndeclined, so neither can the word significant of the act be declined.\nYet, by the aid of our Redeemer's grace, we may manage at least to\ndecline the second. For that is more grievous still, and, indeed, of\nall evils the worst, since it consists not in the separation of soul\nand body, but in the uniting of both in death eternal. And there, in\nstriking contrast to our present conditions, men will not be before or\nafter death, but always in death; and thus never living, never dead,\nbut endlessly dying. And never can a man be more disastrously in death\nthan when death itself shall be deathless.\n\n\n  12. _What death God intended, when He threatened our first parents\n          with death if they should disobey His commandment._\n\nWhen, therefore, it is asked what death it was with which God\nthreatened our first parents if they should transgress the commandment\nthey had received from Him, and should fail to preserve their\nobedience,--whether it was the death of soul, or of body, or of the\nwhole man, or that which is called second death,--we must answer, It is\nall. For the first consists of two; the second is the complete death,\nwhich consists of all. For, as the whole earth consists of many lands,\nand the Church universal of many churches, so death universal consists\nof all deaths. The first consists of two, one of the body, and another\nof the soul. So that the first death is a death of the whole man, since\nthe soul without God and without the body suffers punishment for a\ntime; but the second is when the soul, without God but with the body,\nsuffers punishment everlasting. When, therefore, God said to that first\nman whom he had placed in Paradise, referring to the forbidden fruit,\n\"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,\"[588] that\nthreatening included not only the first part of the first death, by\nwhich the soul is deprived of God; nor only the subsequent part of the\nfirst death, by which the body is deprived of the soul; nor only the\nwhole first death itself, by which the soul is punished in separation\nfrom God and from the body;--but it includes whatever of death there\nis, even to that final death which is called second, and to which none\nis subsequent.\n\n\n    13. _What was the first punishment of the transgression of our\n                            first parents?_\n\nFor, as soon as our first parents had transgressed the commandment,\ndivine grace forsook them, and they were confounded at their own\nwickedness; and therefore they took fig-leaves (which were possibly\nthe first that came to hand in their troubled state of mind), and\ncovered their shame; for though their members remained the same,\nthey had shame now where they had none before. They experienced a\nnew motion of their flesh, which had become disobedient to them, in\nstrict retribution of their own disobedience to God. For the soul,\nrevelling in its own liberty, and scorning to serve God, was itself\ndeprived of the command it had formerly maintained over the body. And\nbecause it had wilfully deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held\nits own inferior servant; neither could it hold the flesh subject, as\nit would always have been able to do had it remained itself subject\nto God. Then began the flesh to lust against the Spirit,[589] in\nwhich strife we are born, deriving from the first transgression\na seed of death, and bearing in our members, and in our vitiated\nnature, the contest or even victory of the flesh.\n\n\n    14. _In what state man was made by God, and into what estate he\n                 fell by the choice of his own will._\n\nFor God, the author of natures, not of vices, created man upright;\nbut man, being of his own will corrupted, and justly condemned, begot\ncorrupted and condemned children. For we all were in that one man,\nsince we all were that one man who fell into sin by the woman who was\nmade from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form\ncreated and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to\nlive, but already the seminal nature was there from which we were\nto be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the\nchain of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man\nin any other state. And thus, from the bad use of free will, there\noriginated the whole train of evil, which, with its concatenation of\nmiseries, convoys the human race from its depraved origin, as from a\ncorrupt root, on to the destruction of the second death, which has no\nend, those only being excepted who are freed by the grace of God.\n\n\n    15. _That Adam in his sin forsook God ere God forsook him, and\n   that his falling away from God was the first death of the soul._\n\nIt may perhaps be supposed that because God said, \"Ye shall die the\ndeath,\"[590] and not \"deaths,\" we should understand only that death\nwhich occurs when the soul is deserted by God, who is its life; for\nit was not deserted by God, and so deserted Him, but deserted Him,\nand so was deserted by Him. For its own will was the originator of\nits evil, as God was the originator of its motions towards good,\nboth in making it when it was not, and in re-making it when it had\nfallen and perished. But though we suppose that God meant only this.\ndeath, and that the words, \"In the day ye eat of it ye shall die the\ndeath,\" should be understood as meaning, \"In the day ye desert me in\ndisobedience, I will desert you in justice,\" yet assuredly in this\ndeath the other deaths also were threatened, which were its inevitable\nconsequence. For in the first stirring of the disobedient motion which\nwas felt in the flesh of the disobedient soul, and which caused our\nfirst parents to cover their shame, one death indeed is experienced,\nthat, namely, which occurs when God forsakes the soul. (This was\nintimated by the words He uttered, when the man, stupefied by fear,\nhad hid himself, \"Adam, where art thou?\"[591]--words which He used not\nin ignorance of inquiry, but warning him to consider where he was,\nsince God was not with him.) But when the soul itself forsook the body,\ncorrupted and decayed with age, the other death was experienced of\nwhich God had spoken in pronouncing man's sentence, \"Earth thou art,\nand unto earth shalt thou return.\"[592] And of these two deaths that\nfirst death of the whole man is composed. And this first death is\nfinally followed by the second, unless man be freed by grace. For the\nbody would not return to the earth from which it was made, save only\nby the death proper to itself, which occurs when it is forsaken of the\nsoul, its life. And therefore it is agreed among all Christians who\ntruthfully hold the catholic faith, that we are subject to the death of\nthe body, not by the law of nature, by which God ordained no death for\nman, but by His righteous infliction on account of sin; for God, taking\nvengeance on sin, said to the man, in whom we all then were, \"Dust thou\nart, and unto dust shalt thou return.\"\n\n\n  16. _Concerning the philosophers who think that the separation of\n      soul and body is not penal, though Plato represents the supreme\n      Deity as promising to the inferior gods that they shall never\n      be dismissed from their bodies._\n\nBut the philosophers against whom we are defending the city of God,\nthat is, His Church, seem to themselves to have good cause to deride\nus, because we say that the separation of the soul from the body\nis to be held as part of man's punishment. For they suppose that\nthe blessedness of the soul then only is complete, when it is quite\ndenuded of the body, and returns to God a pure and simple, and, as it\nwere, naked soul. On this point, if I should find nothing in their\nown literature to refute this opinion, I should be forced laboriously\nto demonstrate that it is not the body, but the corruptibility of\nthe body, which is a burden to the soul. Hence that sentence of\nScripture we quoted in a foregoing book, \"For the corruptible body\npresseth down the soul.\"[593] The word corruptible is added to show\nthat the soul is burdened, not by any body whatsoever, but by the\nbody such as it has become in consequence of sin. And even though\nthe word had not been added, we could understand nothing else.\nBut when Plato most expressly declares that the gods who are made\nby the Supreme have immortal bodies, and when he introduces their\nMaker himself promising them as a great boon that they should abide\nin their bodies eternally, and never by any death be loosed from\nthem, why do these adversaries of ours, for the sake of troubling\nthe Christian faith, feign to be ignorant of what they quite well\nknow, and even prefer to contradict themselves rather than lose\nan opportunity of contradicting us? Here are Plato's words, as\nCicero has translated them,[594] in which he introduces the Supreme\naddressing the gods He had made, and saying, \"Ye who are sprung from\na divine stock, consider of what works I am the parent and author.\nThese (your bodies) are indestructible so long as I will it; although\nall that is composed can be destroyed. But it is wicked to dissolve\nwhat reason has compacted. But, seeing that ye have been born, ye\ncannot indeed be immortal and indestructible; yet ye shall by no\nmeans be destroyed, nor shall any fates consign you to death, and\nprove superior to my will, which is a stronger assurance of your\nperpetuity than those bodies to which ye were joined when ye were\nborn.\" Plato, you see, says that the gods are both mortal by the\nconnection of the body and soul, and yet are rendered immortal by the\nwill and decree of their Maker. If, therefore, it is a punishment to\nthe soul to be connected with any body whatever, why does God address\nthem as if they were afraid of death, that is, of the separation\nof soul and body? Why does He seek to reassure them by promising\nthem immortality, not in virtue of their nature, which is composite\nand not simple, but by virtue of His invincible will, whereby He\ncan effect that neither things born die, nor things compounded be\ndissolved, but preserved eternally?\n\nWhether this opinion of Plato's about the stars is true or not, is\nanother question. For we cannot at once grant to him that these\nluminous bodies or globes, which by day and night shine on the earth\nwith the light of their bodily substance, have also intellectual and\nblessed souls which animate each its own body, as he confidently\naffirms of the universe itself, as if it were one huge animal, in\nwhich all other animals were contained.[595] But this, as I said,\nis another question, which we have not undertaken to discuss at\npresent. This much only I deemed right to bring forward, in opposition\nto those who so pride themselves on being, or on being called\nPlatonists, that they blush to be Christians, and who cannot brook\nto be called by a name which the common people also bear, lest they\nvulgarize the philosophers' coterie, which is proud in proportion to\nits exclusiveness. These men, seeking a weak point in the Christian\ndoctrine, select for attack the eternity of the body, as if it were\na contradiction to contend for the blessedness of the soul, and to\nwish it to be always resident in the body, bound, as it were, in a\nlamentable chain; and this although Plato, their own founder and\nmaster, affirms that it was granted by the Supreme as a boon to the\ngods He had made, that they should not die, that is, should not be\nseparated from the bodies with which He had connected them.\n\n\n   17. _Against those who affirm that earthly bodies cannot be made\n                      incorruptible and eternal._\n\nThese same philosophers further contend that terrestrial bodies\ncannot be eternal, though they make no doubt that the whole earth,\nwhich is itself the central member of their god,--not, indeed, of the\ngreatest, but yet of a great god, that is, of this whole world,--is\neternal. Since, then, the Supreme made for them another god, that\nis, this world, superior to the other gods beneath Him; and since\nthey suppose that this god is an animal, having, as they affirm,\na rational or intellectual soul enclosed in the huge mass of its\nbody, and having, as the fitly situated and adjusted members of its\nbody, the four elements, whose union they wish to be indissoluble\nand eternal, lest perchance this great god of theirs might some day\nperish; what reason is there that the earth, which is the central\nmember in the body of a greater creature, should be eternal, and the\nbodies of other terrestrial creatures should not possibly be eternal\nif God should so will it? But earth, say they, must return to earth,\nout of which the terrestrial bodies of the animals have been taken.\nFor this, they say, is the reason of the necessity of their death and\ndissolution, and this the manner of their restoration to the solid\nand eternal earth whence they came. But if any one says the same\nthing of fire, holding that the bodies which are derived from it to\nmake celestial beings must be restored to the universal fire, does\nnot the immortality which Plato represents these gods as receiving\nfrom the Supreme evanesce in the heat of this dispute? Or does this\nnot happen with those celestials because God, whose will, as Plato\nsays, overpowers all powers, has willed it should not be so? What,\nthen, hinders God from ordaining the same of terrestrial bodies? And\nsince, indeed, Plato acknowledges that God can prevent things that\nare born from dying, and things that are joined from being sundered,\nand things that are composed from being dissolved, and can ordain\nthat the souls once allotted to their bodies should never abandon\nthem, but enjoy along with them immortality and everlasting bliss,\nwhy may He not also effect that terrestrial bodies die not? Is\nGod powerless to do everything that is special to the Christian's\ncreed, but powerful to effect everything the Platonists desire? The\nphilosophers, forsooth, have been admitted to a knowledge of the\ndivine purposes and power which has been denied to the prophets! The\ntruth is, that the Spirit of God taught His prophets so much of His\nwill as He thought fit to reveal, but the philosophers, in their\nefforts to discover it, were deceived by human conjecture.\n\nBut they should not have been so led astray, I will not say by their\nignorance, but by their obstinacy, as to contradict themselves so\nfrequently; for they maintain, with all their vaunted might, that\nin order to the happiness of the soul, it must abandon not only its\nearthly body, but every kind of body. And yet they hold that the\ngods, whose souls are most blessed, are bound to everlasting bodies,\nthe celestials to fiery bodies, and the soul of Jove himself (or this\nworld, as they would have us believe) to all the physical elements\nwhich compose this entire mass reaching from earth to heaven. For\nthis soul Plato believes to be extended and diffused by musical\nnumbers,[596] from the middle of the inside of the earth, which\ngeometricians call the centre, outwards through all its parts to the\nutmost heights and extremities of the heavens; so that this world is\na very great and blessed immortal animal, whose soul has both the\nperfect blessedness of wisdom, and never leaves its own body, and\nwhose body has life everlasting from the soul, and by no means clogs\nor hinders it, though itself be not a simple body, but compacted\nof so many and so huge materials. Since, therefore, they allow so\nmuch to their own conjectures, why do they refuse to believe that by\nthe divine will and power immortality can be conferred on earthly\nbodies, in which the souls would be neither oppressed with the burden\nof them, nor separated from them by any death, but live eternally\nand blessedly? Do they not assert that their own gods so live in\nbodies of fire, and that Jove himself, their king, so lives in the\nphysical elements? If, in order to its blessedness, the soul must\nquit every kind of body, let their gods flit from the starry spheres,\nand Jupiter from earth to sky; or, if they cannot do so, let them be\npronounced miserable. But neither alternative will these men adopt.\nFor, on the one hand, they dare not ascribe to their own gods a\ndeparture from the body, lest they should seem to worship mortals; on\nthe other hand, they dare not deny their happiness, lest they should\nacknowledge wretches as gods. Therefore, to obtain blessedness,\nwe need not quit every kind of body, but only the corruptible,\ncumbersome, painful, dying,--not such bodies as the goodness of God\ncontrived for the first man, but such only as man's sin entailed.\n\n\n  18. _Of earthly bodies, which the philosophers affirm cannot be in\n      heavenly places, because whatever is of earth is by its natural\n      weight attracted to earth._\n\nBut it is necessary, they say, that the natural weight of earthly\nbodies either keep them on earth or draw them to it; and therefore\nthey cannot be in heaven. Our first parents were indeed on earth, in\na well-wooded and fruitful spot, which has been named Paradise. But\nlet our adversaries a little more carefully consider this subject\nof earthly weight, because it has important bearings, both on the\nascension of the body of Christ, and also on the resurrection body\nof the saints. If human skill can by some contrivance fabricate\nvessels that float, out of metals which sink as soon as they are\nplaced on the water, how much more credible is it that God, by\nsome occult mode of operation, should even more certainly effect\nthat these earthy masses be emancipated from the downward pressure\nof their weight? This cannot be impossible to that God by whose\nalmighty will, according to Plato, neither things born perish, nor\nthings composed dissolve, especially since it is much more wonderful\nthat spiritual and bodily essences be conjoined than that bodies\nbe adjusted to other material substances. Can we not also easily\nbelieve that souls, being made perfectly blessed, should be endowed\nwith the power of moving their earthy but incorruptible bodies as\nthey please, with almost spontaneous movement, and of placing them\nwhere they please with the readiest action? If the angels transport\nwhatever terrestrial creatures they please from any place they\nplease, and convey them whither they please, is it to be believed\nthat they cannot do so without toil and the feeling of burden?\nWhy, then, may we not believe that the spirits of the saints, made\nperfect and blessed by divine grace, can carry their own bodies\nwhere they please, and set them where they will? For, though we have\nbeen accustomed to notice, in bearing weights, that the larger the\nquantity the greater the weight of earthy bodies is, and that the\ngreater the weight the more burdensome it is, yet the soul carries\nthe members of its own flesh with less difficulty when they are\nmassive with health, than in sickness when they are wasted. And\nthough the hale and strong man feels heavier to other men carrying\nhim than the lank and sickly, yet the man himself moves and carries\nhis own body with less feeling of burden when he has the greater\nbulk of vigorous health, than when his frame is reduced to a minimum\nby hunger or disease. Of such consequence, in estimating the weight\nof earthly bodies, even while yet corruptible and mortal, is the\nconsideration not of dead weight, but of the healthy equilibrium of\nthe parts. And what words can tell the difference between what we now\ncall health and future immortality? Let not the philosophers, then,\nthink to upset our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies;\nfor I don't care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body\ncan be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing.\nFor perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that\nattracts to its centre all heavy bodies. But this I say, if the\nlesser gods, to whom Plato committed the creation of man and the\nother terrestrial creatures, were able, as he affirms, to withdraw\nfrom the fire its quality of burning, while they left it that of\nlighting, so that it should shine through the eyes; and if to the\nsupreme God Plato also concedes the power of preserving from death\nthings that have been born, and of preserving from dissolution things\nthat are composed of parts so different as body and spirit;--are we\nto hesitate to concede to this same God the power to operate on the\nflesh of him whom He has endowed with immortality, so as to withdraw\nits corruption but leave its nature, remove its burdensome weight but\nretain its seemly form and members? But concerning our belief in the\nresurrection of the dead, and concerning their immortal bodies, we\nshall speak more at large, God willing, in the end of this work.\n\n\n     19. _Against the opinion of those who do not believe that the\n    primitive men would have been immortal if they had not sinned._\n\nAt present let us go on, as we have begun, to give some explanation\nregarding the bodies of our first parents. I say then, that, except\nas the just consequence of sin, they would not have been subjected\neven to this death, which is good to the good,--this death, which\nis not exclusively known and believed in by a few, but is known to\nall, by which soul and body are separated, and by which the body of\nan animal which was but now visibly living is now visibly dead. For\nthough there can be no manner of doubt that the souls of the just\nand holy dead live in peaceful rest, yet so much better would it\nbe for them to be alive in healthy, well-conditioned bodies, that\neven those who hold the tenet that it is most blessed to be quit of\nevery kind of body, condemn this opinion in spite of themselves.\nFor no one will dare to set wise men, whether yet to die or already\ndead,--in other words, whether already quit of the body, or shortly\nto be so,--above the immortal gods, to whom the Supreme, in Plato,\npromises as a munificent gift life indissoluble, or in eternal union\nwith their bodies. But this same Plato thinks that nothing better can\nhappen to men than that they pass through life piously and justly,\nand, being separated from their bodies, be received into the bosom\nof the gods, who never abandon theirs; \"that, oblivious of the past,\nthey may revisit the upper air, and conceive the longing to return\nagain to the body.\"[597] Virgil is applauded for borrowing this from\nthe Platonic system. Assuredly Plato thinks that the souls of mortals\ncannot always be in their bodies, but must necessarily be dismissed\nby death; and, on the other hand, he thinks that without bodies they\ncannot endure for ever, but with ceaseless alternation pass from\nlife to death, and from death to life. This difference, however,\nhe sets between wise men and the rest, that they are carried after\ndeath to the stars, that each man may repose for a while in a star\nsuitable for him, and may thence return to the labours and miseries\nof mortals when he has become oblivious of his former misery, and\npossessed with the desire of being embodied. Those, again, who have\nlived foolishly transmigrate into bodies fit for them, whether human\nor bestial. Thus he has appointed even the good and wise souls to a\nvery hard lot indeed, since they do not receive such bodies as they\nmight always and even immortally inhabit, but such only as they can\nneither permanently retain nor enjoy eternal purity without. Of this\nnotion of Plato's, we have in a former book already said[598] that\nPorphyry was ashamed in the light of these Christian times, so that\nhe not only emancipated human souls from a destiny in the bodies of\nbeasts, but also contended for the liberation of the souls of the\nwise from all bodily ties, so that, escaping from all flesh, they\nmight, as bare and blessed souls, dwell with the Father time without\nend. And that he might not seem to be outbid by Christ's promise of\nlife everlasting to His saints, he also established purified souls in\nendless felicity, without return to their former woes; but, that he\nmight contradict Christ, he denies the resurrection of incorruptible\nbodies, and maintains that these souls will live eternally, not\nonly without earthly bodies, but without any bodies at all. And\nyet, whatever he meant by this teaching, he at least did not teach\nthat these souls should offer no religious observance to the gods\nwho dwelt in bodies. And why did he not, unless because he did not\nbelieve that the souls, even though separate from the body, were\nsuperior to those gods? Wherefore, if these philosophers will not\ndare (as I think they will not) to set human souls above the gods who\nare most blessed, and yet are tied eternally to their bodies, why\ndo they find that absurd which the Christian faith preaches,[599]\nnamely, that our first parents were so created that, if they had not\nsinned, they would not have been dismissed from their bodies by any\ndeath, but would have been endowed with immortality as the reward of\ntheir obedience, and would have lived eternally with their bodies;\nand further, that the saints will in the resurrection inhabit those\nvery bodies in which they have here toiled, but in such sort that\nneither shall any corruption or unwieldiness be suffered to attach to\ntheir flesh, nor any grief or trouble to cloud their felicity?\n\n\n     20. _That the flesh now resting in peace shall be raised to a\n      perfection not enjoyed by the flesh of our first parents._\n\nThus the souls of departed saints are not affected by the death which\ndismisses them from their bodies, because their flesh rests in hope,\nno matter what indignities it receives after sensation is gone. For\nthey do not desire that their bodies be forgotten, as Plato thinks\nfit, but rather, because they remember what has been promised by Him\nwho deceives no man, and who gave them security for the safe keeping\neven of the hairs of their head, they with a longing patience wait in\nhope of the resurrection of their bodies, in which they have suffered\nmany hardships, and are now to suffer never again. For if they did not\n\"hate their own flesh,\" when it, with its native infirmity, opposed\ntheir will, and had to be constrained by the spiritual law, how\nmuch more shall they love it, when it shall even itself have become\nspiritual! For as, when the spirit serves the flesh, it is fitly called\ncarnal, so, when the flesh serves the spirit, it will justly be called\nspiritual. Not that it is converted into spirit, as some fancy from the\nwords, \"It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption,\"[600]\nbut because it is subject to the spirit with a perfect and marvellous\nreadiness of obedience, and responds in all things to the will that\nhas entered on immortality,--all reluctance, all corruption, and all\nslowness being removed. For the body will not only be better than it\nwas here in its best estate of health, but it will surpass the bodies\nof our first parents ere they sinned. For, though they were not to die\nunless they should sin, yet they used food as men do now, their bodies\nnot being as yet spiritual, but animal only. And though they decayed\nnot with years, nor drew nearer to death,--a condition secured to them\nin God's marvellous grace by the tree of life, which grew along with\nthe forbidden tree in the midst of Paradise,--yet they took other\nnourishment, though not of that one tree, which was interdicted not\nbecause it was itself bad, but for the sake of commending a pure and\nsimple obedience, which is the great virtue of the rational creature\nset under the Creator as his Lord. For, though no evil thing was\ntouched, yet if a thing forbidden was touched, the very disobedience\nwas sin. They were, then, nourished by other fruit, which they took\nthat their animal bodies might not suffer the discomfort of hunger or\nthirst; but they tasted the tree of life, that death might not steal\nupon them from any quarter, and that they might not, spent with age,\ndecay. Other fruits were, so to speak, their nourishment, but this\ntheir sacrament. So that the tree of life would seem to have been in\nthe terrestrial Paradise what the wisdom of God is in the spiritual, of\nwhich it is written, \"She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon\nher.\"[601]\n\n\n  21. _Of Paradise, that it can be understood in a spiritual sense\n      without sacrificing the historic truth of the narrative\n      regarding the real place._\n\nOn this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself,\nwhere the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to\nthe truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand\nall its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life,\nas if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so\nspoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there\ncould not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed\nthese two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to\nAbraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the\napostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if\nwater never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein\nChrist can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, \"Now that\nrock was Christ!\"[602] No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify\nthe life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence,\nfortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge;\nits fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself,\nthe mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good and\nevil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God\nappointed was in itself a just, and therefore a good thing; but man's\nexperience of it is not good.\n\nThese things can also and more profitably be understood of the\nChurch, so that they become prophetic foreshadowings of things\nto come. Thus Paradise is the Church, as it is called in the\nCanticles;[603] the four rivers of Paradise are the four gospels; the\nfruit-trees the saints, and the fruit their works; the tree of life\nis the holy of holies, Christ; the tree of the knowledge of good and\nevil, the will's free choice. For if man despise the will of God, he\ncan only destroy himself; and so he learns the difference between\nconsecrating himself to the common good and revelling in his own. For\nhe who loves himself is abandoned to himself, in order that, being\noverwhelmed with fears and sorrows, he may cry, if there be yet soul\nin him to feel his ills, in the words of the psalm, \"My soul is cast\ndown within me,\"[604] and when chastened, may say, \"Because of his\nstrength I will wait upon Thee.\"[605] These and similar allegorical\ninterpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving\noffence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the\nhistory, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.[606]\n\n\n  22. _That the bodies of the saints shall after the resurrection be\n      spiritual, and yet flesh shall not be changed into spirit._\n\nThe bodies of the righteous, then, such as they shall be in the\nresurrection, shall need neither any fruit to preserve them from\ndying of disease or the wasting decay of old age, nor any other\nphysical nourishment to allay the cravings of hunger or of thirst;\nfor they shall be invested with so sure and every way inviolable an\nimmortality, that they shall not eat save when they choose, nor be\nunder the necessity of eating, while they enjoy the power of doing\nso. For so also was it with the angels who presented themselves to\nthe eye and touch of men, not because they could do no otherwise,\nbut because they were able and desirous to suit themselves to men\nby a kind of manhood ministry. For neither are we to suppose, when\nmen receive them as guests, that the angels eat only in appearance,\nthough to any who did not know them to be angels they might seem\nto eat from the same necessity as ourselves. So these words spoken\nin the Book of Tobit, \"You saw me eat, but you saw it but in\nvision;\"[607] that is, you thought I took food as you do for the\nsake of refreshing my body. But if in the case of the angels another\nopinion seems more capable of defence, certainly our faith leaves\nno room to doubt regarding our Lord Himself, that even after His\nresurrection, and when now in spiritual but yet real flesh, He ate\nand drank with His disciples; for not the power, but the need, of\neating and drinking is taken from these bodies. And so they will be\nspiritual, not because they shall cease to be bodies, but because\nthey shall subsist by the quickening spirit.\n\n\n  23. _What we are to understand by the animal and spiritual body; or\n      of those who die in Adam, and of those who are made alive in\n      Christ._\n\nFor as those bodies of ours, that have a living soul, though not as\nyet a quickening spirit, are called soul-informed bodies, and yet are\nnot souls but bodies, so also those bodies are called spiritual,--yet\nGod forbid we should therefore suppose them to be spirits and not\nbodies,--which, being quickened by the Spirit, have the substance,\nbut not the unwieldiness and corruption of flesh. Man will then be\nnot earthly but heavenly,--not because the body will not be that very\nbody which was made of earth, but because by its heavenly endowment it\nwill be a fit inhabitant of heaven, and this not by losing its nature,\nbut by changing its quality. The first man, of the earth earthy, was\nmade a living soul, not a quickening spirit,--which rank was reserved\nfor him as the reward of obedience. And therefore his body, which\nrequired meat and drink to satisfy hunger and thirst, and which had\nno absolute and indestructible immortality, but by means of the tree\nof life warded off the necessity of dying, and was thus maintained in\nthe flower of youth,--this body, I say, was doubtless not spiritual,\nbut animal; and yet it would not have died but that it provoked God's\nthreatened vengeance by offending. And though sustenance was not denied\nhim even outside Paradise, yet, being forbidden the tree of life, he\nwas delivered over to the wasting of time, at least in respect of that\nlife which, had he not sinned, he might have retained perpetually in\nParadise, though only in an animal body, till such time as it became\nspiritual in acknowledgment of his obedience.\n\nWherefore, although we understand that this manifest death, which\nconsists in the separation of soul and body, was also signified by\nGod when He said, \"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely\ndie,\"[608] it ought not on that account to seem absurd that they were\nnot dismissed from the body on that very day on which they took the\nforbidden and death-bringing fruit. For certainly on that very day\ntheir nature was altered for the worse and vitiated, and by their\nmost just banishment from the tree of life they were involved in the\nnecessity even of bodily death, in which necessity we are born. And\ntherefore the apostle does not say, \"The body indeed is doomed to die\non account of sin,\" but he says, \"The body indeed is dead because of\nsin.\" Then he adds, \"But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus\nfrom the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead\nshall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in\nyou.\"[609] Then accordingly shall the body become a quickening spirit\nwhich is now a living soul; and yet the apostle calls it \"dead,\"\nbecause already it lies under the necessity of dying. But in Paradise\nit was so made a living soul, though not a quickening spirit, that it\ncould not properly be called dead, for, save through the commission\nof sin, it could not come under the power of death. Now, since God by\nthe words, \"Adam, where art thou?\" pointed to the death of the soul,\nwhich results when He abandons it, and since in the words, \"Earth\nthou art, and unto earth shalt thou return,\"[610] He signified the\ndeath of the body, which results when the soul departs from it, we\nare led, therefore, to believe that He said nothing of the second\ndeath, wishing it to be kept hidden, and reserving it for the New\nTestament dispensation, in which it is most plainly revealed. And\nthis He did in order that, first of all, it might be evident that\nthis first death, which is common to all, was the result of that sin\nwhich in one man became common to all.[611] But the second death is\nnot common to all, those being excepted who were \"called according to\nHis purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be\nconformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born\namong many brethren.\"[612] Those the grace of God has, by a Mediator,\ndelivered from the second death.\n\nThus the apostle states that the first man was made in an animal body.\nFor, wishing to distinguish the animal body which now is from the\nspiritual, which is to be in the resurrection, he says, \"It is sown in\ncorruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour, it\nis raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it\nis sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.\" Then, to prove\nthis, he goes on, \"There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual\nbody.\" And to show what the animated body is, he says, \"Thus it was\nwritten, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam\nwas made a quickening spirit.\"[613] He wished thus to show what the\nanimated body is, though Scripture did not say of the first man Adam,\nwhen his soul was created by the breath of God, \"Man was made in an\nanimated body,\" but \"Man was made a living soul.\"[614] By these words,\ntherefore, \"The first man was made a living soul,\" the apostle wishes\nman's animated body to be understood. But how he wishes the spiritual\nbody to be understood he shows when he adds, \"But the last Adam was\nmade a quickening spirit,\" plainly referring to Christ, who has so\nrisen from the dead that He cannot die any more. He then goes on to\nsay, \"But that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is\nnatural; and afterward that which is spiritual.\" And here he much more\nclearly asserts that he referred to the animal body when he said that\nthe first man was made a living soul, and to the spiritual when he\nsaid that the last man was made a quickening spirit. The animal body\nis the first, being such as the first Adam had, and which would not\nhave died had he not sinned, being such also as we now have, its nature\nbeing changed and vitiated by sin to the extent of bringing us under\nthe necessity of death, and being such as even Christ condescended\nfirst of all to assume, not indeed of necessity, but of choice;\nbut afterwards comes the spiritual body, which already is worn by\nanticipation by Christ as our head, and will be worn by His members in\nthe resurrection of the dead.\n\nThen the apostle subjoins a notable difference between these two men,\nsaying, \"The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is\nthe Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are\nearthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.\nAnd as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the\nimage of the heavenly.\"[615] So he elsewhere says, \"As many of you\nas have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;\"[616] but in\nvery deed this shall be accomplished when that which is animal in us\nby our birth shall have become spiritual in our resurrection. For,\nto use his words again, \"We are saved by hope.\"[617] Now we bear the\nimage of the earthly man by the propagation of sin and death, which\npass on us by ordinary generation; but we bear the image of the\nheavenly by the grace of pardon and life eternal, which regeneration\nconfers upon us through the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ\nJesus. And He is the heavenly Man of Paul's passage, because He came\nfrom heaven to be clothed with a body of earthly mortality, that\nHe might clothe it with heavenly immortality. And he calls others\nheavenly, because by grace they become His members, that, together\nwith them, He may become one Christ, as head and body. In the same\nepistle he puts this yet more clearly: \"Since by man came death,\nby Man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all\ndie, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,\"[618]--that is to\nsay, in a spiritual body which shall be made a quickening spirit.\nNot that all who die in Adam shall be members of Christ,--for the\ngreat majority shall be punished in eternal death,--but he uses the\nword \"all\" in both clauses, because, as no one dies in an animal\nbody except in Adam, so no one is quickened a spiritual body save\nin Christ. We are not, then, by any means to suppose that we shall\nin the resurrection have such a body as the first man had before he\nsinned, nor that the words, \"As is the earthy, such are they also\nthat are earthy,\" are to be understood of that which was brought\nabout by sin; for we are not to think that Adam had a spiritual body\nbefore he fell, and that, in punishment of his sin, it was changed\ninto an animal body. If this be thought, small heed has been given\nto the words of so great a teacher, who says, \"There is a natural\nbody, there is also a spiritual body; as it is written, The first man\nAdam was made a living soul.\" Was it after sin he was made so? or was\nnot this the primal condition of man from which the blessed apostle\nselects his testimony to show what the animal body is?\n\n\n  24. _How we must understand that breathing of God by which \"the\n      first man was made a living soul,\" and that also by which\n      the Lord conveyed His Spirit to His disciples when He said,\n      \"Receive ye the Holy Ghost.\"_\n\nSome have hastily supposed from the words, \"God breathed into Adam's\nnostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul,\"[619]\nthat a soul was not then first given to man, but that the soul\nalready given was quickened by the Holy Ghost. They are encouraged\nin this supposition by the fact that the Lord Jesus after His\nresurrection breathed on His disciples, and said, \"Receive ye the\nHoly Spirit.\"[620] From this they suppose that the same thing was\neffected in either case, as if the evangelist had gone on to say,\nAnd they became living souls. But if he had made this addition, we\nshould only understand that the Spirit is in some way the life of\nsouls, and that without Him reasonable souls must be accounted dead,\nthough their bodies seem to live before our eyes. But that this\nwas not what happened when man was created, the very words of the\nnarrative sufficiently show: \"And God made man dust of the earth;\"\nwhich some have thought to render more clearly by the words, \"And\nGod formed man of the clay of the earth.\" For it had before been\nsaid that \"there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole\nface of the ground,\"[621] in order that the reference to clay, formed\nof this moisture and dust, might be understood. For on this verse\nthere immediately follows the announcement, \"And God created man dust\nof the earth;\" so those Greek manuscripts have it from which this\npassage has been translated into Latin. But whether one prefers to\nread \"_created_\" or \"_formed_,\" where the Greek reads \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, is\nof little importance; yet \"_formed_\" is the better rendering. But\nthose who preferred \"created\" thought they thus avoided the ambiguity\narising from the fact, that in the Latin language the usage obtains\nthat those are said to form a thing who frame some feigned and\nfictitious thing. This man, then, who was created of the dust of the\nearth, or of the moistened dust or clay,--this \"dust of the earth\"\n(that I may use the express words of Scripture) was made, as the\napostle teaches, an animated body when he received a soul. This man,\nhe says, \"was made a living soul;\" that is, this fashioned dust was\nmade a living soul.\n\nThey say, Already he had a soul, else he would not be called a man;\nfor man is not a body alone, nor a soul alone, but a being composed of\nboth. This, indeed, is true, that the soul is not the whole man, but\nthe better part of man; the body not the whole, but the inferior part\nof man; and that then, when both are joined, they receive the name of\nman,--which, however, they do not severally lose even when we speak of\nthem singly. For who is prohibited from saying, in colloquial usage,\n\"That man is dead, and is now at rest or in torment,\" though this can\nbe spoken only of the soul; or \"He is buried in such and such a place,\"\nthough this refers only to the body? Will they say that Scripture\nfollows no such usage? On the contrary, it so thoroughly adopts it,\nthat even while a man is alive, and body and soul are united, it\ncalls each of them singly by the name \"_man_,\" speaking of the soul\nas the \"inward man,\" and of the body as the \"outward man,\"[622] as if\nthere were two men, though both together are indeed but one. But we\nmust understand in what sense man is said to be in the image of God,\nand is yet dust, and to return to the dust. The former is spoken\nof the rational soul, which God by His breathing, or, to speak more\nappropriately, by His inspiration, conveyed to man, that is, to his\nbody; but the latter refers to his body, which God formed of the dust,\nand to which a soul was given, that it might become a living body, that\nis, that man might become a living soul.\n\nWherefore, when our Lord breathed on His disciples, and said, \"Receive\nye the Holy Ghost,\" He certainly wished it to be understood that\nthe Holy Ghost was not only the Spirit of the Father, but of the\nonly-begotten Son Himself. For the same Spirit is, indeed, the Spirit\nof the Father and of the Son, making with them the trinity of Father,\nSon, and Spirit, not a creature, but the Creator. For neither was that\nmaterial breath which proceeded from the mouth of His flesh the very\nsubstance and nature of the Holy Spirit, but rather the intimation,\nas I said, that the Holy Spirit was common to the Father and to the\nSon; for they have not each a separate Spirit, but both one and the\nsame. Now this Spirit is always spoken of in sacred Scripture by the\nGreek word \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, as the Lord, too, named Him in the place cited when\nHe gave Him to His disciples, and intimated the gift by the breathing\nof His lips; and there does not occur to me any place in the whole\nScriptures where He is otherwise named. But in this passage where it\nis said, \"And the Lord formed man dust of the earth, and breathed, or\ninspired, into his face the breath of life;\" the Greek has not \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1,\nthe usual word for the Holy Spirit, but \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae, a word more frequently\nused of the creature than of the Creator; and for this reason some\nLatin interpreters have preferred to render it by \"breath\" rather\nthan \"spirit.\" For this word occurs also in the Greek in Isa. lvii.\n16, where God says, \"I have made all breath,\" meaning, doubtless, all\nsouls. Accordingly, this word \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae is sometimes rendered \"breath,\"\nsometimes \"spirit,\" sometimes \"inspiration,\" sometimes \"aspiration,\"\nsometimes \"soul,\" even when it is used of God. \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, on the other\nhand, is uniformly rendered \"spirit,\" whether of man, of whom the\napostle says, \"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the\nspirit of man which is in him?\"[623] or of beast, as in the book of\nSolomon, \"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the\nspirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?\"[624] or of\nthat physical spirit which is called wind, for so the Psalmist calls\nit: \"Fire and hail; snow and vapours; stormy wind;\"[625] or of the\nuncreated Creator Spirit, of whom the Lord said in the gospel, \"Receive\nye the Holy Ghost,\" indicating the gift by the breathing of His mouth;\nand when He says, \"Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the\nFather, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\"[626] words which very\nexpressly and excellently commend the Trinity; and where it is said,\n\"God is a Spirit;\"[627] and in very many other places of the sacred\nwritings. In all these quotations from Scripture we do not find in the\nGreek the word \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae used, but \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, and in the Latin, not _flatus_,\nbut _spiritus_. Wherefore, referring again to that place where it is\nwritten, \"He inspired,\" or, to speak more properly, \"breathed into his\nface the breath of life,\" even though the Greek had not used \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae (as\nit has) but \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, it would not on that account necessarily follow\nthat the Creator Spirit, who in the Trinity is distinctively called the\nHoly Ghost, was meant, since, as has been said, it is plain that \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\nis used not only of the Creator, but also of the creature.\n\nBut, say they, when the Scripture used the word \"spirit,\"[628] it would\nnot have added \"of life\" unless it meant us to understand the Holy\nSpirit; nor, when it said, \"Man became a soul,\" would it also have\ninserted the word \"living\" unless that life of the soul were signified\nwhich is imparted to it from above by the gift of God. For, seeing\nthat the soul by itself has a proper life of its own, what need, they\nask, was there of adding living, save only to show that the life which\nis given it by the Holy Spirit was meant? What is this but to fight\nstrenuously for their own conjectures, while they carelessly neglect\nthe teaching of Scripture? Without troubling themselves much, they\nmight have found in a preceding page of this very book of Genesis the\nwords, \"Let the earth bring forth the living soul,\"[629] when all the\nterrestrial animals were created. Then at a slight interval, but still\nin the same book, was it impossible for them to notice this verse,\n\"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the\ndry land, died,\" by which it was signified that all the animals which\nlived on the earth had perished in the deluge? If, then, we find that\nScripture is accustomed to speak both of the \"living soul\" and the\n\"spirit of life\" even in reference to beasts; and if in this place,\nwhere it is said, \"All things which have the spirit of life,\" the word\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae, not \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, is used; why may we not say, What need was there to\nadd \"living,\" since the soul cannot exist without being alive? or, What\nneed to add \"of life\" after the word spirit? But we understand that\nScripture used these expressions in its ordinary style so long as it\nspeaks of animals, that is, animated bodies, in which the soul serves\nas the residence of sensation; but when man is spoken of, we forget\nthe ordinary and established usage of Scripture, whereby it signifies\nthat man received a rational soul, which was not produced out of the\nwaters and the earth like the other living creatures, but was created\nby the breath of God. Yet this creation was so ordered that the human\nsoul should live in an animal body, like those other animals of which\nthe Scripture said, \"Let the earth produce every living soul,\" and\nregarding which it again says that in them is the breath of life, where\nthe word \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae and not \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is used in the Greek, and where certainly\nnot the Holy Spirit, but their spirit, is signified under that name.\n\nBut, again, they object that breath is understood to have been\nemitted from the mouth of God; and if we believe that is the soul,\nwe must consequently acknowledge it to be of the same substance, and\nequal to that wisdom, which says, \"I come out of the mouth of the\nMost High.\"[630] Wisdom, indeed, does not say it was breathed out of\nthe mouth of God, but proceeded out of it. But as we are able, when\nwe breathe, to make a breath, not of our own human nature, but of the\nsurrounding air, which we inhale and exhale as we draw our breath and\nbreathe again, so almighty God was able to make breath, not of His\nown nature, nor of the creature beneath Him, but even of nothing;\nand this breath, when He communicated it to man's body, He is most\nappropriately said to have breathed or inspired,--the Immaterial\nbreathing it also immaterial, but the Immutable not also the\nimmutable; for it was created, He uncreated. Yet, that these persons\nwho are forward to quote Scripture, and yet know not the usages of\nits language, may know that not only what is equal and consubstantial\nwith God is said to proceed out of His mouth, let them hear or read\nwhat God says: \"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold\nnor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.\"[631]\n\nThere is no ground, then, for our objecting, when the apostle so\nexpressly distinguishes the animal body from the spiritual,--that is\nto say, the body in which we now are from that in which we are to\nbe. He says, \"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual\nbody. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so\nit is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last\nAdam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which\nis spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is\nspiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is\nthe Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are\nearthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.\nAnd as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear\nthe image of the heavenly.\"[632] Of all which words of his we have\npreviously spoken. The animal body, accordingly, in which the apostle\nsays that the first man Adam was made, was not so made that it could\nnot die at all, but so that it should not die unless he should have\nsinned. That body, indeed, which shall be made spiritual and immortal\nby the quickening Spirit shall not be able to die at all; as the soul\nhas been created immortal, and therefore, although by sin it may be\nsaid to die, and does lose a certain life of its own, namely, the\nSpirit of God, by whom it was enabled to live wisely and blessedly,\nyet it does not cease living a kind of life, though a miserable,\nbecause it is immortal by creation. So, too, the rebellious angels,\nthough by sinning they did in a sense die, because they forsook\nGod, the Fountain of life, which while they drank they were able\nto live wisely and well, yet they could not so die as to utterly\ncease living and feeling, for they are immortals by creation. And\nso, after the final judgment, they shall be hurled into the second\ndeath, and not even there be deprived of life or of sensation, but\nshall suffer torment. But those men who have been embraced by God's\ngrace, and are become the fellow-citizens of the holy angels who have\ncontinued in bliss, shall never more either sin or die, being endued\nwith spiritual bodies; yet, being clothed with immortality, such as\nthe angels enjoy, of which they cannot be divested even by sinning,\nthe nature of their flesh shall continue the same, but all carnal\ncorruption and unwieldiness shall be removed.\n\nThere remains a question which must be discussed, and, by the help of\nthe Lord God of truth, solved: If the motion of concupiscence in the\nunruly members of our first parents arose out of their sin, and only\nwhen the divine grace deserted them; and if it was on that occasion\nthat their eyes were opened to see, or, more exactly, notice their\nnakedness, and that they covered their shame because the shameless\nmotion of their members was not subject to their will,--how, then,\nwould they have begotten children had they remained sinless as they\nwere created? But as this book must be concluded, and so large a\nquestion cannot be summarily disposed of, we may relegate it to the\nfollowing book, in which it will be more conveniently treated.\n\n                      MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,\n             PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[573] Matt. x. 28.\n\n[574] On this question compare the 24th and 25th epistles of Jerome,\n_de obitu Le\u00e6_, and _de obitu Blesill\u00e6 fili\u00e6_. Coqu\u00e6us.\n\n[575] Ps. xlix. 12.\n\n[576] On which see further in _de Peccat. Mer._ i. 67 et seq.\n\n[577] _De Baptismo Parvulorum_ is the second half of the title of the\nbook, _de Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione_.\n\n[578] 1 Cor. xv. 56.\n\n[579] Rom. vii. 12, 13.\n\n[580] Literally, unregenerate.\n\n[581] John iii. 5.\n\n[582] Matt. x. 32.\n\n[583] Matt. xvi. 25.\n\n[584] Ps. cxvi. 15.\n\n[585] Much of this paradoxical statement about death is taken from\nSeneca. See, among other places, his epistle on the premeditation of\nfuture dangers, the passage beginning, \"Quotidie morimur, quotidie\nenim demitur aliqua pars vit\u00e6.\"\n\n[586] Ecclus. xi. 28.\n\n[587] Ps. vi. 5.\n\n[588] Gen. ii. 17.\n\n[589] Gal. v. 17.\n\n[590] Gen. ii. 17.\n\n[591] Gen. iii. 9.\n\n[592] Gen. iii. 19.\n\n[593] Wisdom ix. 15.\n\n[594] A translation of part of the _Tim\u00e6us_, given in a little book\nof Cicero's, _De Universo_.\n\n[595] Plato, in the _Tim\u00e6us_, represents the Demiurgus as\nconstructing the _kosmos_ or universe to be a complete representation\nof the idea of animal. He planted in its centre a soul, spreading\noutwards so as to pervade the whole body of the _kosmos_; and then\nhe introduced into it those various species of animals which were\ncontained in the idea of animal. Among these animals stand first the\ncelestial, the gods embodied in the stars; and of these the oldest\nis the earth, set in the centre of all, close packed round the great\naxis which traverses the centre of the _kosmos_.--See the _Tim\u00e6us_\nand Grote's _Plato_, iii. 250 et seq.\n\n[596] On these numbers see Grote's _Plato_, iii. 254.\n\n[597] Virgil, _\u00c6neid_, vi. 750, 751.\n\n[598] Book x. 30.\n\n[599] A catena of passages, showing that this is the catholic\nChristian faith, will be found in Bull's _State of Man before the\nFall_ (_Works_, vol. ii.).\n\n[600] 1 Cor. xv. 42.\n\n[601] Prov. iii. 18.\n\n[602] 1 Cor. x. 4.\n\n[603] Cant. iv. 13.\n\n[604] Ps. xlii. 6.\n\n[605] Ps. lix. 9.\n\n[606] Those who wish to pursue this subject will find a pretty\nfull collection of opinions in the learned commentary on Genesis\nby the Jesuit Pererius. Philo was, of course, the leading culprit,\nbut Ambrose and other Church fathers went nearly as far. Augustine\ncondemns the Seleucians for this among other heresies, that they\ndenied a visible Paradise.--_De H\u00e6res._ 59.\n\n[607] Tobit xii. 19.\n\n[608] Gen. ii. 17.\n\n[609] Rom. viii. 10, 11.\n\n[610] Gen. iii. 19.\n\n[611] \"In uno commune factum est omnibus.\"\n\n[612] Rom. viii. 28, 29.\n\n[613] 1 Cor. xv. 42-45.\n\n[614] Gen. ii. 7.\n\n[615] 1 Cor. xv. 47-49.\n\n[616] Gal. iii. 27.\n\n[617] Rom. viii. 24.\n\n[618] 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22.\n\n[619] Gen. ii. 7.\n\n[620] John xx. 22.\n\n[621] Gen. ii. 6.\n\n[622] 2 Cor. iv. 16.\n\n[623] 1 Cor. ii. 11.\n\n[624] Eccles. iii. 21.\n\n[625] Ps. cxlviii. 8.\n\n[626] Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n[627] John iv. 24.\n\n[628] \"Breath,\" Eng. ver.\n\n[629] Gen. i. 24.\n\n[630] Ecclus. xxiv. 3.\n\n[631] Rev. iii. 16.\n\n[632] 1 Cor. xv. 44-49.\n\n\n\n\n                             LIST OF WORKS\n\n                             PUBLISHED BY\n\n                       T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.\n\n\n                          SUBSCRIPTION BOOKS.\n\n                    =Foreign Theological Library.=\n\n  _MESSRS. CLARK beg respectfully to intimate that from this time\n      they will allow a Selection of Twenty Volumes (or more at the\n      same ratio) from the various Series, with the exception of\n      the Volumes issued in 1868-69-70. No Duplicates allowed in a\n      Selection of Twelve or Twenty Volumes._\n\n                 At the Subscription Price of \u00a35, 5s.\n\n\n  ----------------------------------------------------+---------------\n                                                      | Selling Price.\n                                                      |  \u00a3 _s._ _d._\n  Any 12 vols. of First Series (or more at same       |\n       ratio),                                        |  3   3    0\n                                                      |\n  =FIRST SERIES=, 29 vols. demy 8vo.       _netto_    |  7  12    0\n                                                      |\n  Hengstenberg's Commentary on the Psalms. 3 vols.    |\n  Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine. 2 vols.      |\n  Gieseler's Compendium of Ecclesiastical History.    |\n       5 vols.                                        |\n  Neander's General Church History. 9 vols.           |\n  Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts. 4 vols.          |\n  Olshausen on the Romans.                            |\n  Olshausen on the Corinthians.                       |\n  Olshausen on the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians,  |\n       and Thessalonians.                             |\n  Olshausen on Philippians, Titus, and Timothy.       |\n  Olshausen and Ebrard on the Hebrews.                |\n  Havernick's General Introduction to the Old         |\n       Testament.                                     |\n                                                      |\n  =SECOND SERIES=, 20 vols. demy 8vo, cloth,          |  5   5    0\n                                                      |\n  Stier on the Words of the Lord Jesus. 8 vols.       |\n  Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament.    |\n       4 vols.                                        |\n  Ullmann's Reformers before the Reformation. 2 vols. |\n  Gerlach's Commentary on the Pentateuch. 1 vol.      |\n  M\u00fcller on the Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols.    |\n       (_new translation_).                           |\n  Baumgarten's Apostolic History. 3 vols.             |\n                                                      |\n  =THIRD SERIES=, 20 vols. demy 8vo, cloth,           |  5   5    0\n                                                      |\n  Kurtz's History of the Old Covenant. 3 vols.        |\n  Stier on the Words of the Risen Saviour, etc. 1 vol.|\n  Tholuck on the Gospel of St. John. 1 vol.           |\n  Hengstenberg on Ecclesiastes, etc. 1 vol.           |\n  Tholuck on Christ's Sermon on the Mount. 1 vol.     |\n  Ebrard on Epistles of John. 1 vol.                  |\n  Dorner on the Person of Christ. 5 vols.             |\n  Lange on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark.   |\n       3 vols.                                        |\n  Oosterzee and Lange on St. Luke's Gospel. 2 vols.   |\n  Ebrard's Gospel History. 1 vol.                     |\n  Kurtz's Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament.   |\n       1 vol.                                         |\n                                                      |\n  =FOURTH SERIES= (1864-71),                          |  8   8    0\n                                                      |\n  Any two years in this series can be had at          |\n       Subscription price.                            |\n                                                      |\n        (1864-65.)                                    |\n  Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.      }   |\n  Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. 3 vols.   }   |  2   2    0\n  Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. 2 vols.     }   |\n  Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. }   |\n       1 vol.                                     }   |\n                                                      |\n        (1866.)                                       |\n  Keil and Delitzsch on Samuel. 1 vol.            }   |\n  Keil and Delitzsch on Job. 2 vols.              }   |  1   1    0\n  Martensen's System of Christian Doctrine.       }   |\n       1 vol.                                     }   |\n                                                      |\n        (1867.)                                       |\n  Delitzsch on Isaiah. Vol. I.                    }   |\n  Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology.               }   |  1   1    0\n  Delitzsch on Isaiah. Vol. II.                   }   |\n  Auberlen on Divine Revelation.                  }   |\n                                                      |\n        (1868.)                                       |\n  Keil's Commentary on the Minor Prophets.        }   |\n       2 vols.                                    }   |\n  Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the        }   |\n       Hebrews. Vol. I.                           }   |  1   1    0\n  Harless' System of Christian Ethics. 1 vol.     }   |\n                                                      |\n        (1869.)                                       |\n  Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. 1 vol.                 }   |\n  Stier on the Words of the Apostles. 1 vol.      }   |  1   1    0\n  Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament.       }   |\n       Vol. I.                                    }   |\n  Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament.      }   |\n       Vol. I.                                    }   |\n                                                      |\n        (1870.)                                       |\n  Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament.       }   |\n       Vol. II.                                   }   |\n  Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament.      }   |  1   1    0\n       Vol. II.                                   }   |\n  Schmid's New Testament Theology. 1 vol.         }   |\n  Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the        }   |\n       Hebrews. Vol. II.                          }   |\n                                                      |\n  _The First Issue for_ 1871 _comprises_--        }   |\n  Delitzsch's Commentary on the Psalms. Vols. I.  }   |\n       and II.                                    }   |  1   1    0\n  _This Subscription includes other two volumes,_ }   |\n  _the names of which will be announced shortly._ }   |\n                                                      |\n  _The Retail Bookseller is entitled to charge_       |\n       24 _s. if the Subscription is not paid by      |\n       his Customer in advance._                      |\n                                                      |\n                                                      |\n  =BENGEL'S GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= (Sixth      |\n       Thousand now ready.) Now first translated      |\n       into English, with Original Notes,             |\n       Explanatory and Illustrative, in five large    |\n       volumes, demy 8vo, Edited by Rev. ANDREW       |\n       R. FAUSSETT, M.A., Rector of St.               |\n       Cuthbert's, York,             _netto_          |  1   11\n  ----------------------------------------------------+---------------\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n\nObvious punctuation and spelling errors have been fixed throughout.\n\nInconsistent hyphenation is as in the original.","title":"The City of God, Volume I","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":231157}