THE DIVINE INSTITUTES and OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PERSECUTORS
DIED.(1)
by
Lactantius
THE DIVINE INSTITUTES
BOOK I.
OF THE FALSE WORSHIP OF THE GODS.
PREFACE.--OF WHAT GREAT VALUE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH IS AND ALWAYS
HAS BEEN.
MEN of great and distinguished talent, when they had
entirely devoted themselves to learning, holding in contempt all
actions both private and public, applied to the pursuit of
investigating the truth whatever labour could be bestowed upon it;
thinking it much more excellent to investigate and know the method of
human and divine things, than to be entirely occupied with the heaping
up of riches or the accumulation of honours. For no one can be made
better or more just by these things, since they are frail and earthly,
and pertain to the adorning of the body only. Those men were indeed
most deserving of the knowledge of the truth, which they so greatly
desired to know, that they even preferred it to all things. For it is
plain that some gave up their property, and altogether abandoned the
pursuit of pleasures, that, being disengaged and without impediment,
they might follow the simple truth, and it alone. And so greatly did
the name and authority of the truth prevail with them, that they
proclaimed that the reward of the greatest good was contained in it.
But they did not obtain the object of their wish, and at the same time
lost their labour and industry; because the truth, that is the secret
of the Most High God, who created all things, cannot be attained by our
own ability and perceptions. Otherwise there would be no difference
between God and man, if human thought. could reach to the counsels and
arrangements of that eternal majesty. And because it was impossible
that the divine method of procedure should become known to man by
his own efforts, God did not suffer man any longer to err in
search of the light of wisdom, and to wander through inextricable
darkness without any result of his labour, but at length opened
his eyes, and made the investigation of the truth His own gift,
so that He might show the nothingness of human wisdom, and point out to
man wandering in error the way of obtaining immortality.
But since few make use of this heavenly benefit and
gift, because the truth lies hidden veiled in obscurity; and it is
either an object of contempt to the learned because it has not suitable
defenders, or is hated by the unlearned on account of its natural
severity, which the nature of men inclined to vices cannot endure: for
because there is a bitterness mingled with virtues, while vices are
seasoned with pleasure, offended by the former and soothed by the
latter, they are borne headlong, and deceived by the appearance of good
things, they embrace evils for goods,--I have believed that these
errors should be encountered, that both the learned may be directed to
true wisdom, and the unlearned to true religion. And this profession is
to be thought much better, more useful and glorious, than that of
oratory, in which being long engaged, we trained young men not to
virtue, but altogether to cunning wickedness.(1) Certainly we shall now
much more rightly discuss respecting the heavenly precepts, by which we
may be able to instruct the minds of men to the worship of the true
majesty. Nor does he deserve so well respecting the affairs of men, who
imparts the knowledge of speaking well, as he who teaches men to live
in piety and innocence; on which account the philosophers were in
greater glory among the Greeks than the orators. For they, the
philosophers, were considered teachers of right living, which is far
more excellent, since to speak well belongs only to a few, but to live
well belongs to all. Yet that practice in fictitious suits has been of
great advantage to us, so that we are now able to plead the cause of
truth with greater copiousness and ability of speaking; for although
the truth may be defended without eloquence, as it often has
10
been defended by many, yet it needs to be explained, and in a measure
discussed, with distinctness and elegance of speech, in order that it
may flow with greater power into the minds of men, being both provided
with its own force, and adorned with the brilliancy of speech.
CHAP. I.--OF RELIGION AND WISDOM.
We undertake, therefore, to discuss religion and
divine things. For if some of the greatest orators, veterans as it were
of their profession, having completed the works of their pleadings, at
last gave themselves up to philosophy, and regarded that as a most just
rest from their labours, if they tortured their minds in the
investigation of those things which could not be found out, so that
they appear to have sought for themselves not so much leisure as
occupation, and that indeed with much greater trouble than in their
former pursuit; how much more justly shall I betake myself as to a most
safe harbour, to that pious, true, and divine wisdom, in which all
things are ready for utterance, pleasant to the hearing, easy to be
understood, honourable to be undertaken! And if some skilful men and
arbiters of justice composed and published Institutions of civil law,
by which they might lull the strifes and contentions of discordant
citizens, how much better and more rightly shall we follow up in
writing the divine Institutions, in which we shall not speak about
rain-droppings, or the turning of waters, or the preferring of claims,
but we shall speak of hope, of life, of salvation, of immortality, and
of God, that we may put an end to deadly superstitions and most
disgraceful errors.
And we now commence this work under the auspices of
your name, O mighty Emperor Constantine, who were the first of the
Roman princes to repudiate errors, and to acknowledge and honour the
majesty of the one and only true God.(1) For when that most happy day
had shone upon the world, in which the Most High God raised you to the
prosperous height of power, you entered upon a dominion which was
salutary and desirable for all, with an excellent beginning,
when, restoring justice which had been overthrown and taken away, you
expiated the most shameful deed of others. In return for which action
God will grant to you happiness, virtue, and length of days, that
even when old you may govern the state with the same justice with which
you began in youth, anti may hand down to your children the
guardianship of the Roman name, as you yourself received it from your
father. For to the wicked, who still rage against the righteous in
other parts of the world, the Omnipotent will also repay the reward of
their wickedness with a severity proportioned to its tardiness; for as
He is a most indulgent Father towards the godly, so is He a most
upright Judge against the ungodly. And in my desire to defend His
religion and divine worship, to whom can I rather appeal, whom can I
address, but him by whom justice and wisdom have been restored to the
affairs of
men?
Therefore, leaving the authors of this earthly
philosophy, who bring forward nothing certain. let us approach the
right path; for if I considered these to be sufficiently suitable
guides to a good life, I would both follow them myself, and exhort
others to follow them. But since they disagree among one another with
great contention, and are for the most part at variance with
themselves, it is evident that their path is by no means
straightforward: since they have severally marked out distinct ways for
themselves according to their own will, and have left great confusion
to those who are seeking for the truth. But since the truth is revealed
from heaven to us who have received the mystery of true religion, and
since we follow God, the teacher of wisdom and the guide to truth, we
call to ether all, without any distinction either of sex or of age, to
heavenly pasture. For there is no more pleasant food for the soul than
the knowledge of truth,(2) to the maintaining and explaining of which
we have destined seven books, although the subject is one of almost
boundless and immeasurable labour; so that if any one should wish to
dilate upon and follow up these things to their full extent, he would
have such an exuberant supply of subjects, that neither books would
find any limit, nor speech any end. But oil this account we will put
together all things briefly, because those things which we are about to
bring forward are so plain and lucid, that it seems to be more
wonderful that the truth appears so obscure to men, and to those
especially who are commonly esteemed wise, or because men will only
need to be trained by us,--that is, to be recalled from the error in
which they are entangled to a better course of life.
And if, as I hope, we shall attain to this, we will
send them to the very fountain of learning, which is most rich and
abundant, by copious draughts of which they may appease the thirst
conceived within, and quench their ardour. And all things will be easy,
ready of accomplishment, and clear to them, if only they are not
annoyed at applying patience in reading or hearing to the perception of
the discipline of wisdom.(3) For many, pertinaciously adhering to vain
superstitions, harden themselves against the manifest
11
truth, not so much deserving well of their religions, which they
wrongly maintain, as they deserve ill of themselves; who, when they
have a straight path, seek devious windings; who leave the level ground
that they may glide over a precipice; who leave the light, that, blind
and enfeebled, they may lie in darkness. We must provide for these,
that they may not fight against themselves, and that they may be
willing at length to be freed from inveterate errors. And this they
will assuredly do if they shall at any time see for what purpose they
were born; for this is the cause of their perverseness,--namely,
ignorance of themselves: and if any one, having gained the knowledge of
the truth, shall have shaken off this ignorance, he will know to what
object his life is to be directed, and how it is to be spent. And I
thus briefly define the sum of this knowledge, that neither is any
religion to be undertaken without wisdom, nor any wisdom to be approved
of without religion.
CHAP. II.--THAT THERE
IS A PROVIDENCE IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
Having therefore undertaken the office of explaining
the truth, I did not think it so necessary to take my commencement from
that inquiry which naturally seems the first, whether there is a
providence which consults for all things, or all things were either
made or are governed by chance; which sentiment was introduced by
Democritus, and confirmed by Epicurus. But before them, what did
Protagoras effect, who raised doubts respecting the gods; or Diagoras
afterwards, who excluded them; and some others, who did not hold the
existence of gods, except that there was supposed to be no providence?
These, however, were most vigorously opposed by the other philosophers,
and especially by the Stoics, who taught that the universe could
neither have been made without divine intelligence, nor continue to
exist unless it were governed by the highest intelligence. But even
Marcus Tullius, although he was a defender of the Academic system,
discussed at length and on many occasions respecting the providence
which governs affairs, confirming the arguments of the Stoics, and
himself adducing many new ones; and this he does both in all the books
of his own philosophy, and especially in those which treat of the
nature of the gods.(1)
And it was no difficult task, indeed, to refute the
falsehoods of a few men who entertained perverse sentiments by the
testimony of communities and tribes, who on this one point had no
disagreement. For there is no one so uncivilized, and of such an
uncultivated disposition,
who, when he raises his eyes to heaven, although he knows not by the
providence of what God all this visible universe is governed, does not
understand from the very magnitude of the objects, from their motion,
arrangement, constancy, usefulness, beauty, and temperament, that there
is some providence, and that that which exists with wonderful method
must have been prepared by some greater intelligence. And for us,
assuredly, it is very easy to follow up this part as copiously as it
may please us. But because the subject has been much agitated among
philosophers, and they who take away providence appear to have been
sufficiently answered by men of sagacity and eloquence, and
because it is necessary to speak, in different places throughout
this work which we have undertaken, respecting the skill of the divine
providence, let us for the present omit this inquiry, which is so
closely connected with the other questions, that it seems possible for
us to discuss no subject, without at the same time discussing the
subject of providence.
CHAP. III.--WHETHER THE UNIVERSE IS GOVERNED BY THE POWER OF ONE GOD OR
OF MANY.
Let the commencement of our work therefore be that
inquiry which closely follows and is connected with the first: Whether
the universe is governed by the power of one God or of many. There is
no one, who possesses intelligence and uses reflection, who does not
understand that it is one Being who both created all things and governs
them with the same energy by which He created them. For what need is
there of many to sustain the government of the universe? unless we
should happen to think that, if there were more than one, each would
possess less might and strength. And they who hold that there are many
gods, do indeed effect this; for those gods must of necessity be weak,
since individually, without the aid of the others, they would be unable
to sustain the government of so vast a mass. But God, who is the
Eternal Mind, is undoubtedly of excellence, complete and perfect in
every part. And if this is true, He must of necessity be one. For power
or excellence, which is complete, retains its own peculiar stability.
But that is to be regarded as solid from which nothing can be taken
away, that as perfect to which nothing can be added.
Who can doubt that he would be a most powerful king
who should have the government of the whole world? And not without
reason, since all things which everywhere exist would belong to him,
since all resources from all quarters would be centred in him alone.
But if more than one divide the government of the world, undoubtedly
each will have less power and strength, since every one must confine
him-
12
self within his prescribed portion.(1) In the same manner also, if
there are more gods than one, they will be of less weight, others
having in themselves the same power. But the nature of excellence
admits of greater perfection in him in whom the whole is, than in him
in whom there is only a small part of the whole. But God, if He is
perfect, as He ought to be, cannot but be one, because He is perfect,
so that all things may be in Him. Therefore the excellences and powers
of the gods must necessarily be weaker, because so much will be wanting
to each as shall be in the others; and so the more there are, so much
the less powerful will they be. Why should I mention that this highest
power and divine energy is altogether incapable of division? For
whatever is capable of division must of necessity be liable to
destruction also. But if destruction is far removed from God, because
He is incorruptible and eternal, it follows that the divine power is
incapable of division. Therefore God is one, if that which admits of so
great power can be nothing else: and yet those who deem that there are
many gods, say that they have divided their functions among themselves;
but we will discuss all these matters at their proper places. In the
meantime, I affirm this, which belongs to the present subject. If they
have divided their functions among themselves, the matter comes back to
the same point, that any one of them is unable to supply the place of
all. He cannot, then, be perfect who is unable to govern all things
while the others are unemployed. And so is comes to pass, that for the
government of the universe there is more need of the perfect excellence
of one than of the imperfect powers of many. But he who imagines that
so great a magnitude as this cannot be governed by one Being, is
deceived. For he does not comprehend how great are the might and power
of the divine majesty, if he thinks that the one God, who had power to
create the universe, is also unable to govern that which He has
created. But if he conceives in his mind how great is the immensity of
that divine work, when before it was nothing, yet that by the power and
wisdom of God it was made out of nothing--a work which could only be
commenced and accomplished by one--he will now understand that that
which has been established by one is much more easily governed by one.
Some one may perhaps say that so immense a work as
that of the universe could not even have been fabricated except by
many. But however many and however great he may consider
them,--whatever magnitude, power, excellence, and majesty he may
attribute to the
many,--the whole of that I assign to one, and say that it exists in
one: so that there is in Him such an amount of these properties as can
neither be conceived nor expressed. And since we fail in this subject,
both in perception and in words--for neither does the human breast
admit the light of so great understanding, nor is the mortal tongue
capable of explaining such great subjects--it is right that we should
understand and say this very same thing. I see, again, what can be
alleged on the other hand, that those many gods are such as we hold the
one God to be. But this cannot possibly be so, because the power of
these gods individually will not be able to proceed further, the power
of the others meeting and hindering them. For either each must be
unable to pass beyond his own limits, or, if he shall have passed
beyond them, he must drive another from his boundaries. They who
believe that there are many gods, do not see that it may happen that
some may be opposed to others in their wishes, from which circumstance
disputing and contention would arise among them; as Homer represented
the gods at war among themselves, since some desired that Troy should
be taken, others opposed it. The universe, therefore, must be ruled by
the will of one. For unless the power over the separate parts be
referred to one and the same providence, the whole itself will not be
able to exist; since each takes care of nothing beyond that which
belongs peculiarly to him, just as warfare could not be carried on
without one general and commander. But if there were in one army
as many generals as there are legions, cohorts, divisions,(2) and
squadrons, first of all it would not be possible for the army to be
drawn out in battle array, since each would refuse the peril; nor could
it easily be governed or controlled, because all would use their own
peculiar counsels, by the diversity of which they would inflict more
injury than they would confer advantage. So, in this government of the
affairs of nature, unless there shall be one to whom the care of the
whole is referred, all things will be dissolved and fall to decay.
But to say that the universe is governed by the will
of many, is equivalent to a declaration that there are many minds in
one body, since there are many and various offices of the members, so
that separate minds may be supposed to govern separate senses; and also
the many affections, by which we are accustomed to be moved either to
anger, or to desire, or to joy, or to fear, or to pity, so that in all
these affections as many minds may be supposed to operate; and if any
one should say this, he would appear to be destitute even of that very
mind, which is one. But
13
if in one body one mind possesses the government of so many things, and
is at the same time occupied with the whole, why should any one suppose
that the universe cannot be governed by one, but that it can be
governed by more than one? And because those maintainers of many gods
are aware of this, they say that they so preside over separate offices
and parts, that there is still one chief ruler. The others, therefore,
on this principle, will not be gods, but attendants and ministers, whom
that one most mighty and omnipotent appointed to these offices, and
they themselves will be subservient to his authority and command. If,
therefore, all are not equal to one another, all are not gods; for that
which serves and that which rules cannot be the same. For if God is a
title of the highest power, He must be incorruptible, perfect,
incapable of suffering, and subject to no other being; therefore they
are not gods whom necessity compels to obey the one greatest God. But
because they who hold this opinion are not deceived without cause, we
will presently lay open the cause of this error. Now, let us prove by
testimonies the unity of the divine power.
CHAP. IV.--THAT THE ONE GOD WAS FORETOLD EVEN
BY THE PROPHETS.
The prophets, who were very many, proclaim and
declare the one God; for, being filled with the inspiration of the one
God, they predicted things to come, with agreeing and harmonious voice.
But those who are ignorant of the truth do not think that these
prophets are to be believed; for they say that those voices are not
divine, but human. Forsooth, because they proclaim one God, they were
either madmen or deceivers. But truly we see that their predictions
have been fulfilled, and are in course of fulfilment daily; and their
foresight, agreeing as it does to one opinion, teaches that they were
not under the impulse of madness. For who possessed of a frenzied mind
would be able, I do not say to predict the future, but even to speak
coherently? Were they, therefore, who spoke such things deceitful? What
was so utterly foreign to their nature as a system of deceit, when they
themselves restrained others from all fraud? For to this end were they
sent by God, that they should both be heralds of His majesty, and
correctors of the wickedness of man.
Moreover, the inclination to feign and speak falsely
belongs to those who covet riches, and eagerly desire gains,--a
disposition which was far removed from those holy men. For they so
discharged the office entrusted to them, that, disregarding all things
necessary for the maintenance of life, they were so far from laying up
store for the future, that they did not even labour for the day,
content with the unstored food which God had supplied; and these not
only had no gains, but even endured torments and death. For the
precepts of righteousness are distasteful to the wicked, and to those
who lead an unholy life. Wherefore they, whose sins were brought to
light and forbidden, most cruelly tortured and slew them. They,
therefore, who had no desire for gain, had neither the inclination nor
the motive for deceit. Why should I say that some of them were princes,
or even kings,(1) upon whom the suspicion of covetousness and fraud
could not possibly fall, and yet they proclaimed the one God with the
same prophetic foresight as the others?
CHAP, V.--OF THE
TESTIMONIES OF POETS AND PHILOSOPHERS.
But let us leave the testimony of prophets, lest a
proof derived from those who are universally disbelieved should appear
insufficient. Let us come to authors, and for the demonstration of the
truth let us cite as witnesses those very persons whom they are
accustomed to make use of against us,--I mean poets and philosophers.
From these we cannot fail in proving the unity of God; not that they
had ascertained the truth, but that the force of the truth itself is so
great, that no one can be so blind as not to see the divine brightness
presenting itself to his eyes. The poets, therefore, however much they
adorned the gods in their poems, and amplified their exploits with the
highest praises, yet very frequently confess that all things are held
together and governed by one spirit or mind. Orpheus, who is the most
ancient of the poets, and coeval with the gods themselves,--since it is
reported that he sailed among the Argonauts together with the sons of
Tyndarus and Hercules,--speaks of the true and great God as the
first-born(2) because nothing was produced before Him, but all things
sprung from Him. He also calls Him Phanes(3) because when as yet there
was nothing He first appeared and came forth from the infinite. And
since he was unable to conceive in his mind the origin and nature of
this Being, he said that He was born from the boundless air: "The
first-born, Phaethon, son of the extended air;" for he had nothing more
to say. He affirms that this Being is the Parent of all the gods, on
whose account He framed the heaven, and provided for His children that
they might have a habitation and place of abode in common: "He built
for immortals an imperishable home." Thus, under the guidance of nature
and reason, he understood that there was a power of surpassing
14
greatness which framed heaven and earth. For he could not say that
Jupiter was the author of all things, since he was born from Saturn;
nor could he say that Saturn himself was their author, since it was
reported that he was produced from the heaven; but he did not venture
to set up the heaven as the primeval god, because he saw that it was an
element of the universe, and must itself have had an author. This
consideration led him to that first-born god, to whom he assigns and
gives the first place.
Homer was able to give us no information relating to
the truth, for he wrote of human rather than divine things. Hesiod was
able, for he comprised in the work of one book the generation of the
gods; but yet he gave us no information, for he took his commencement
not from God the Creator, but from chaos, which is a confused mass of
rude and unarranged matter; whereas he ought first to have explained
from what source, at what time, and in what manner, chaos itself had
begun to exist or to have consistency. Without doubt, as all things
were placed in order, arranged, and made by some artificer, so matter
itself must of necessity have been formed by some being. Who, then,
made it except God, to whose power all things are subject? But he
shrinks from admitting this, while he dreads the unknown truth. For, as
he wished it to appear, it was by the inspiration of the Muses that he
poured forth that song on Helicon; but he had come after previous
meditation and preparation.
Maro was the first of our poets to approach the
truth, who thus speaks respecting the highest God, whom he calls Mind
and Spirit:(1)--
"Know first, the heaven, the earth, the main,
The moon's pale orb, the starry train,
Are nourished by a Soul,
A Spirit, whose celestial flame
Glows in each member of the frame,
And stirs the mighty whole."
And lest any one should happen to be ignorant what that Spirit was
which had so much power, he has declared it in another place,
saying:(2) "For the Deity pervades all lands, the tracts of sea and
depth of heaven; the flocks, the herds, and men, and all the race of
beasts, each at its birth, derive their slender lives from Him."
Ovid also, in the beginning of his remarkable work,
without any disguising of the name, admits that the universe was
arranged by God, whom he calls the Framer of the world, the Artificer
of all things.(3) But if either Orpheus or these poets of our country
had always maintained what they perceived under the guidance of nature,
they would have comprehended the truth, and gained the same learning
which we follow.(4)
But thus far of the poets. Let us come to the
philosophers, whose authority is of greater weight, and their judgment
more to be relied on, because they are believed to have paid attention,
not to matters of fiction, but to the investigation of the truth.
Thales of Miletus, who was one of the number of the seven wise men, and
who is said to have been the first of all to inquire respecting natural
causes, said that water was the element from which all things were
produced, and that God was the mind which formed all things from water.
Thus he placed the material of all things in moisture; he fixed the
beginning and cause of their production in God. Pythagoras thus defined
the being of God, "as a soul passing to and fro, and diffused through
all parts of the universe, and through all nature, from which all
living creatures which are produced derive their life." Anaxagoras said
that God was an infinite mind, which moves by its own power.
Antisthenes maintained that the gods of the people were many, but that
the God of nature was one only; that is, the Fabricator of the whole
universe. Cleanthes and Anaximenes assert that the air is the chief
deity; and to this opinion our poet has assented:(5) "Then almighty
father Aether descends in fertile showers into the bosom of his joyous
spouse; and great himself, mingling with her great body, nourishes all
her offspring." Chrysippus speaks of God as a natural power endowed
with divine reason, and sometimes as a divine necessity. Zeno also
speaks of Him as a divine and natural law. The opinion of all these,
however uncertain it is, has reference to one point,--to their
agreement in the existence of one providence. For whether it be nature,
or aether, or reason, or mind, or a fatal necessity, or a divine law,
or if you term it anything else, it is the same which is called by us
God. Nor does the diversity of titles prove an obstacle, since by their
very signification they all refer to one object. Aristotle, although he
is at variance with himself, and both utters and holds sentiments
opposed to one another, yet upon the whole bears witness that one Mind
presides over the. universe. Plato, who is judged the wisest of all,
plainly and openly maintains the rule of one God; nor does he name Him
Aether, or Reason, or Nature, but, as He truly is, God, and that this
universe, so perfect and wonderful, was fabricated by Him. And Cicero,
following and imitating him in many instances, frequently acknowledges
God, and calls Him supreme, in those books which he wrote on the
15
subject of laws; and he adduces proof that the universe is governed by
Him, when he argues respecting the nature of the gods in this way:
"Nothing is superior to God: the world must therefore be governed by
Him. Therefore God is obedient or subject to no nature; consequently He
Himself governs all nature." But what God Himself is he defines in his
Consolation:(1) "Nor can God Himself, as He is comprehended by us, be
comprehended in any other way than as a mind free and unrestrained, far
removed from all mortal materiality, perceiving and moving all things."
How often, also, does Annaeus Seneca, who was the
keenest Stoic of the Romans, follow up with deserved praise the supreme
Deity! For when he was discussing the subject of premature death, he
said "You do not understand the authority and majesty of your Judge,
the Ruler of the world, and the God or heaven and of all gods, on whom
those deities which we separately worship and honour are dependent."
Also in his Exhortations: "This Being, when He was laying the first
foundations of the most beautiful fabric, and was commencing this work,
than which nature has known nothing greater or better, that all things
might serve their own rulers, although He had spread Himself out
through the whole body, yet He produced gods as ministers of His
kingdom." And how many other things like to our own writers did
he speak on the subject of God! But these things I put off for the
present, because they are more suited to other parts of the subject. At
present it is enough to demonstrate that men of the highest genius
touched upon the truth, and almost grasped it, had not custom,
infatuated by false opinions, carried them back; by which custom they
both deemed that there were other gods, and believed that those things
which God made for the use of man, as though they were endowed with
perception, were to be held and worshipped as gods.
CHAP. VI.--OF DIVINE TESTIMONIES, AND OF THE SIBYLS AND THEIR
PREDICTIONS.
Now let us pass to divine testimonies; but I will
previously bring forward one which resembles a divine testimony, both
on account of its very great antiquity, and because he whom I shall
name was taken from men and placed among the gods. According to Cicero,
Caius Cotta the pontiff, while disputing against the Stoics concerning
superstitions, and the variety of opinions which prevail respecting the
gods, in order that he might, after the custom of the Academics, make
everything uncertain, says that there were five Mercuries; and having
enumerated four in order, says that the fifth was he by whom Argus
was slain, and that on this account he fled into Egypt, and gave laws
and letters to the Egyptians. The Egyptians call him Thoth; and from
him the first month of their year, that is, September, received its
name among them. He also built a town, which is even now called in
Greek Hermopolis (the town of Mercury), and the inhabitants of Phenae
honour him with religious worship. And although he was a man, yet he
was of great antiquity, and most fully imbued with every kind of
learning, so that the knowledge of many subjects and arts acquired for
him the name of Trismegistus.(2) He wrote books, and those in great
numbers, relating to the knowledge of divine things, in which be
asserts the majesty of the supreme and only God, and makes mention of
Him by the same names which we use-God and Father. And that no one
might inquire His name, he said that He was without name, and that on
account of His very unity He does not require the peculiarity of a
name. These are his own words: "God is one, but He who is one only does
not need a name; for He who is self-existent is without a name." God,
therefore, has no name, because He is alone; nor is there any need of a
proper name, except in cases where a multitude of persons requires a
distinguishing mark, so that you may designate each person by his own
mark and appellation. But God, because He is always one, has no
peculiar name.
It remains for me to bring forward testimonies
respecting the sacred responses and predictions, which are much more to
be relied upon. For perhaps they against whom we are arguing may think
that no credence is to be given to poets, as though they invented
fictions, nor to philosophers, inasmuch as they were liable to err,
being themselves but men. Marcus Varro, than whom no man of greater
learning ever lived, even among the Greeks, much less among the Latins,
in those books respecting divine subjects which he addressed to Caius
Caesar the chief pontiff, when he was speaking of the Quindecemviri,(3)
says that the Sibylline books were not the production of one Sibyl
only, but that they were called by one name Sibylline, because all
prophetesses were called by the ancients Sibyls, either from the name
of one, the Delphian priestess, or from their proclaiming the counsels
of the gods. For in the Aeolic dialect they used to call the gods by
the word Sioi, not . Theoi; and for counsel they used the word bule,
not boule;--and so the Sibyl received her name as though Siobule.(4)
But he says that the Sibyls
16
were ten in number, and he enumerated them all under the writers, who
wrote an account of each: that the first was from the Persians, and of
her Nicanor made mention, who wrote the exploits of Alexander of
Macedon;--the second of Libya, and of her Euripides makes mention in
the prologue of the Lamia;--the third of Delphi, concerning whom
Chrysippus speaks in that book which he composed concerning
divination;--the fourth a Cimmerian in Italy, whom Naevius mentions in
his books of the Punic war, and Piso in his annals;--the fifth of
Erythraea, whom Apollodorus of Erythraea affirms to have been his own
country-woman, and that she foretold to the Greeks when they were
setting but for Ilium, both that Troy was doomed to destruction, and
that Homer would write falsehoods;--the sixth of Samos, respecting whom
Eratosthenes writes that he had found a written notice in the ancient
annals of the Samians. The seventh was of Cumae, by name Amalthaea, who
is termed by some Herophile, or Demophile and they say that she brought
nine books to the king Tarquinius Priscus, and asked for them three
hundred philippics, and that the king refused so great a price, and
derided the madness of the woman; that she, in the sight of the king,
burnt three of the books, and demanded the same price for those which
were left; that Tarquinias much more considered the woman to be mad;
and that when she again, having burnt three other books, persisted in
asking the same price, the king was moved, and bought the remaining
books for the three hundred pieces of gold: and the number of these
books was afterwards increased, after the rebuilding of the Capitol;
because they were collected from all cities of Italy and Greece, and
especially from those of Erythraea, and were brought to Rome, under the
name of whatever Sibyl they were. Further, that the eighth was from the
Hellespont, born in the Trojan territory, in the village of Marpessus,
about the town of Gergithus; and Heraclides of Pontus writes that she
lived in the times of Solon and Cyrus;--the ninth of Phrygia, who gave
oracles at Ancyra;--the tenth of Tibur, by name Albunea, who is
worshipped at Tibur as a goddess, near the banks of the river
Anio, in the depths of which her statue is said to have been
found, holding in her hand a book. The senate transferred her oracles
into the Capitol.
The predictions of all these Sibyls(1) are both
brought forward and esteemed as such, except those of the Cumaean
Sibyl, whose books are l concealed by the Romans; nor do they consider
it lawful for them to be inspected by any
one but the Quindecemviri. And them are separate books the production
of each, but because these are inscribed with the name of the Sibyl
they are believed to be the work of one; and they are confused, nor can
the productions of each be distinguished and assigned to their own
authors, except in the case of the Erythraean Sibyl, for she both
inserted her own true name in her verse, and predicted that she would
be called Erythraean, though she was born at Babylon. But we also shall
speak of the Sibyl without any distinction, wherever we shall have
occasion to use their testimonies. All these Sibyls, then, proclaim one
God, and especially the Erythraean, who is regarded among the others as
more celebrated and noble; since Fenestella, a most diligent writer,
speaking of the Quindecemviri, says that, after the rebuilding of the
Capitol, Caius Curio the consul proposed to the senate that ambassadors
should be sent to Erythrae to search out and bring to Rome the writings
of the Sibyl; and that, accordingly, Publius Gabinius, Marcus
Otacilius, and Lucius Valerius were sent, who conveyed to Rome about a
thousand verses written out by private persons. We have shown before
that Varro made the same statement. Now in these verses which the
ambassadors brought to Rome, are these testimonies respecting the one
God:--
1. "One God, who is alone, most mighty,
uncreated."
This is the only supreme God, who made the heaven, and decked it with
lights.
2. "But there is one only God of pre-eminent
power, who made the heaven, and sun, and stars, and moon, and fruitful
earth, and waves of the water of the sea."
And since He alone is the framer of the universe, and the artificer of
all things of which it consists or which are contained in it, it
testifies that He alone ought to be worshipped:--
3. "Worship Him who is alone the ruler of the
world, who alone was and is from age to age."
Also another Sibyl, whoever she is, when she said that she conveyed the
voice of God to men, thus spoke:--
4. "I am the one only God, and there is no
other God."
I would now follow up the testimonies of the others,
were it not that these are sufficient, and that I reserve others for
more befitting opportunities. But since we are defending the cause of
truth before those who err from the truth and serve false religions,
what kind of proof ought we to bring forward(2) against them, rather
than to refute them by the testimonies of their own gods?
17
CHAP. VII.--CONCERNING THE TESTIMONIES OF
APOLLO AND THE GODS.
Apollo, indeed, whom they think divine above all
others, and especially prophetic, giving responses at Colophon,--I
suppose because, induced by the pleasantness of Asia, he had removed
from Delphi,--to some one who asked who He was, or what God was at all,
replied in twenty-one verses, of which this is the beginning:--
"Self-produced, untaught, without a mother, unshaken,
A name not even to be comprised in word, dwelling in fire,
This is God; and we His messengers are a slight portion of
God."
Can any one suspect that this is spoken of Jupiter, who had both a
mother and a name? Why should I say that Mercury, that thrice greatest,
of whom I have made mention above, not only speaks of God as "without a
mother," as Apollo does, but also as "without a father," because He has
no origin from any other source but Himself? For He cannot be produced
from any one, who Himself produced all things. I have, as I think,
sufficiently taught by arguments, and confirmed by witnesses, that
which is sufficiently plain by itself, that there is one only King of
the universe, one Father, one God.
But perchance some one may ask of us the same
question which Hortensius asks in Cicero: If God is one only,(1) what
solitude can be happy? As though we, in asserting that He is one, say
that He is desolate and solitary. Undoubtedly He has ministers, whom we
call messengers. And that is true, which I have before related, that
Seneca said in his Exhortations that God produced ministers of His
kingdom. But these are neither gods, nor do they wish to be called gods
or to be worshipped, inasmuch as they do nothing but execute the
command and will of God. Nor, however, are they gods who are worshipped
in common, whose number is small and fixed. But if the worshippers of
the gods think that they worship those beings whom we call the
ministers of the Supreme God, there is no reason why they should envy
its who say that there is one God, and deny that there are many. If a
multitude of gods delights them, we do not speak of twelve, or three
hundred and sixty-five as Orpheus did; but we convict them of
innumerable errors on the other side, in thinking that they are so few,
Let them know, however, by what name they ought to be called, lest they
do injury to the true God, whose name they set forth, while they assign
it to more than one. Let them believe their own Apollo, who in that
same response took away from the other gods their name, as he took away
the dominion from Jupiter. For
the third verse shows that the ministers of God ought not to be called
gods, but angels. He spoke falsely respecting himself, indeed; for
though he was of the number of demons, he reckoned himself among the
angels of God, and then in other responses he confessed himself a
demon. For when he was asked how he wished to be supplicated, he thus
answered:--
"O all-wise, all-learned, versed in many pursuits, hear, O
demon."
And so, again, when at the entreaty of some one he uttered an
imprecation against the Sminthian Apollo, he began with this verse:--
"O harmony of the world, bearing light, all-wise demon."
What therefore remains, except that by his own confession he is subject
to the scourge of the true God and to everlasting punishment? For in
another response he also said:--
"The demons who go about the earth and about the sea
Without weariness, are subdued beneath the scourge
of God."
We speak on the subject of both in the second book. In the meantime it
is enough for us, that while he wishes to honour and place himself in
heaven. he has confessed, as the nature of the matter is, in what
manner they are to be named who always stand beside God.
Therefore let men withdraw themselves from errors;
and laying aside corrupt superstitions, let them acknowledge their
Father and Lord, whose excellence cannot be estimated, nor His
greatness perceived, nor His beginning comprehended. When the earnest
attention of the human mind and its acute sagacity and memory has
reached Him, all ways being, as it were, summed up and
exhausted,(2) it stops, it is at a loss, it fails; nor is there
anything beyond to which it can proceed. But because that which exists
must of necessity have had a beginning, it follows that since there was
nothing before Him, He was produced from Himself before all things.
Therefore He is called by Apollo "self-produced," by the Sibyl
"self-created," "uncreated," and "unmade." And Seneca, an acute man,
saw and expressed this in his Exhortations. "We," he said, "are
dependent upon another." Therefore we took to some one to whom we owe
that which is most excellent in us. Another brought us into being,
another formed us; but God of His own power made Himself.
CHAP. VIII.--THAT GOD IS WITHOUT A BODY, NOR DOES HE NEED DIFFERENCE OF
SEX FOR PROCREATION.
It is proved, therefore, by these witnesses, so
numerous and of such authority, that the universe
18
is governed by the power and providence of one God, whose energy and
majesty Plato in the Timoeus asserts to be so great, that no one can
either conceive it in his mind, or give utterance to it in words, on
account of His surpassing and incalculable power. And then can any one
doubt whether any thing can be difficult or impossible for God, who by
His providence designed, by His energy established, and by His judgment
completed those works so great and wonderful, and even now sustains
them by His spirit, and governs them by His power, being
incomprehensible and unspeakable, and fully known to no other than
Himself? Wherefore, as I often reflect on the subject of such great
majesty, they who worship the gods sometimes appear so blind, so
incapable of reflection, so senseless, so little removed from the mute
animals, as to believe that those who are born from the natural
intercourse of the sexes could have had anything of majesty and divine
influence; since the Erythraean Sibyl says: "It is impossible for a God
to be fashioned from the loins of a man and the womb of a woman." And
if this is true, as it really is, it is evident that Hercules, Apollo,
Bacchus, Mercury, and Jupiter, with the rest, were but men, since they
were born from the two sexes. But what is so far removed from the
nature of God as that operation which He Himself assigned to mortals
for the propagation of their race, and which cannot be affected without
corporeal substance?
Therefore, if the gods are immortal and eternal,
what need is there of the other sex, when they themselves do not
require succession, since they are always about to exist? For assuredly
in the case of mankind and the other animals, there is no other reason
for difference of sex and procreation and bringing forth, except that
all classes of living creatures, inasmuch as they are doomed to death
by the condition of their mortality, may be preserved by mutual
succession. But God, who is immortal, has no need of difference of sex,
nor of succession. Some one will say that this arrangement is
necessary, in order that He may have some to minister to Him, or over
whom He may bear rule. What need is there of the female sex, since God,
who is almighty, is able to produce sons without the agency of the
female? For if He has granted to certain minute creatures(1) that
they
"Should gather offspring for themselves with their mouth
from leaves and sweet herbs,"
why should any one think it impossible for God Himself to have
offspring except by union with the other sex? No one, therefore, is so
thoughtless as not to understand that those were mere
mortals, whom the ignorant and foolish regard and worship as gods. Why,
then, some one will say, were they believed to be gods? Doubtless
because they were very great and powerful kings; and since, on account
of the merits of their virtues, or offices, or the arts which they
discovered, they were beloved by those over whom they had ruled, they
were consecrated to lasting, memory. And if any one doubts this, let
him consider their exploits and deeds, the whole of which both ancient
poets and historians have handed down.
CHAP. IX.--OF HERCULES
AND HIS LIFE AND DEATH.(2)
Did not Hercules, who is most renowned for his
valour, and who is regarded as an Africanus among the gods, by his
debaucheries, lusts, and adulteries, pollute the world, which he is
related to have traversed and purified? And no wonder, since he was
born from an adulterous intercourse with Alcmena.
What divinity could there have been in him, who,
enslaved to his own vices, against all laws, treated with infamy,
disgrace, and outrage, both males and females? Nor, indeed, are those
great and wonderful actions which he performed to be judged such as to
be thought worthy of being attributed to divine excellence. For what!
is it so magnificent if he overcame a lion and a boar; if he shot down
birds with arrows; if he cleansed a royal stable; if he conquered a
virago, and deprived her of her belt; if he slew savage horses together
with their master? These are the deeds of a brave and heroic man, but
still a man; for those things which he overcame were frail and
mortal. For there is no power so great, as the orator says, which
cannot be weakened and broken by iron and strength. But to conquer the
mind, and to restrain anger, is the part of the bravest man; and these
things he never did or could do: for one who does these things I do not
compare with excellent men, but I judge him to be most like to a god.
I could wish that he had added something on the
subject of lust, luxury, desire, and arrogance, so as to complete the
excellence of him whom he judged to be like to a god. For he is not to
be thought braver who overcomes a lion, than he who overcomes the
violent wild beast shut up within himself, viz. anger; or he who has
brought down most rapacious birds, than he who restrains most covetous
desires; or he who subdues a warlike Amazon, than he who subdues lust,
the vanquisher(3) of modesty and fame; or he who cleanses a stable from
dung, than he who cleanses his heart from vices, which are more
destructive
19
evils because they are peculiarly his own, than those which might have
been avoided and guarded against. From this it comes to pass, that he
alone ought to be judged a brave man who is temperate, moderate, and
just. But if any one considers what the works of God are, he will at
once judge all these things, which most trifling men admire, to be
ridiculous. For they measure them not by the divine power of which they
are ignorant, but by the weakness of their own strength. For no one
will deny this, that Hercules was not only a servant to Eurystheus, a
king, which to a certain extent may appear honourable, but also to an
unchaste woman, Omphale, who used to order him to sit at her feet,
clothed with her garments, and executing an appointed task. Detestable
baseness! But such was the price at which pleasure was valued. What!
some one will say, do you think that the poets are to be believed? Why
should I not think so? For it is not Lucilius who relates these things,
or Lucian, who spared not men nor gods, but these especially who sting
the praises of the gods.
Whom, then, shall we believe, if we do not credit
those who praise them? Let him who thinks that these speak. falsely
produce other authors on whom we may rely, who may teach us who these
gods are, in what manner and from what source they had their origin,
what is their strength, what their number, what their power, what there
is in them which is admirable and worthy of adoration--what mystery, in
short, more to be relied on, and more true. He will produce no such
authorities. Let us, then, give credence to those who did not speak for
the purpose of censure, but to proclaim their praise. He sailed, then,
with the Argonauts, and sacked Troy, being enraged with Laomedon on
account of the reward refused to him, by Laomedon, for the preservation
of his daughter, from which circumstance it is evident at what time he
lived. He also, excited by rage and madness, slew his wife, together
with his children. Is this he whom men consider a god? But his heir
Philoctetes did not so regard him, who applied a torch to him when
about to be burnt, who witnessed the burning and wasting of his limbs
and sinews, who buried his bones and ashes on Mount OEta, in return for
which office he received his arrows.
CHAP. X.--OF THE LIFE AND ACTIONS AESCULAPIUS, APOLLO, NEPTUNE,
MARS,CASTOR AND POLLUX, MERCURY AND BACCHUS.
What other action worthy of divine honours, except
the healing of Hippolytus, did Aesculapius perform, whose birth also
was not without disgrace to Apollo? His death was certainly
more renowned, because he earned the distinction of being struck with
lightning by a god. Tarquitius, in a dissertation concerning
illustrious men, says that he was born of uncertain parents, exposed,
and found by some hunters; that he was nourished by a dog, and that,
being delivered to Chiron, he learned the art of medicine. He says,
moreover, that he was a Messenian, but that he spent some time at
Epidaurus. Tully also says that he was buried at Cynosurae. What was
the conduct of Apollo, his father? Did he not, on account of his
impassioned love, most disgracefully tend the flock of another, and
build walls for Laomedon, having been hired together with Neptune for a
reward, which could with impunity be withheld from him? And from him
first the perfidious king learned to refuse to carry out whatever
contract he had made with gods. And he also, while in love with a
beautiful boy, offered violence to him, and while engaged in play, slew
him.
Mars, when guilty of homicide, and set free from the
charge of murder by the Athenians through favour, lest he should appear
to be too fierce and savage, committed adultery with Venus.
Castor and Pollux, while they are engaged in carrying off the wives of
others, ceased to be twin-brothers. For Idas, being excited with
jealousy on account of the injury, transfixed one of the brothers with
his sword. And the poets relate that they live and die alternately: so
that they are now the most wretched not only of the gods, but also of
all mortals, inasmuch as they are not permitted to die once only. And
yet Homer, differing from the other poets, simply records that they
both died. For when he represented Helen as sitting by the side of
Priam on the walls of Troy, and recognising all the chieftains of
Greece, but as looking in vain for her brothers only, he added to his
speech a verse of this kind:--
"Thus she; unconscious that in Sparta they,
Their native land, beneath the sod were laid."
What did Mercury, a thief and spendthrift, leave to contribute to his
fame, except the memory of his frauds? Doubtless he was deserving of
heaven, because he taught the exercises of the palaestra, and was the
first who invented the lyre.(1) It is necessary that Father Liber
should be of chief authority, and of the first rank in the senate of
the gods, because he was the only one of them all, except Jupiter, who
triumphed, led an army, and subdued the Indians. But that very great
and unconquered Indian commander was most shamefully overpowered by
love and lust. For, being conveyed to Crete with his effeminate
retinue, lie met with an unchaste woman on the shore; and in the
confidence inspired by his
20
Indian victory, he wished to give proof of his manliness, lest he
should appear too effeminate. And so he took to himself in marriage
that woman, the betrayer of her father, and the murderer of her
brother, after that she had been deserted and repudiated by another
husband; and he made her Libera, and with her ascended into heaven.
What was the conduct of Jupiter, the father of all
these, who in the customary prayer is styled(1) Most Excellent and
Great? Is he not, from his earliest childhood, proved to be impious,
and almost a parricide, since he expelled his father from his kingdom,
and banished him, and did not await his death though he was aged and
worn out, such was his eagerness for rule? And when he had taken his
father's throne by violence and arms, he was attacked with war by the
Titans, which was the beginning of evils to the human race; and
when these had been overcome and lasting peace procured, he spent the
rest of his life in debaucheries and adulteries. I forbear to mention
the virgins whom he dishonoured. For that is wont to be judged
endurable. I cannot pass by the cases of Amphitryon and Tyndarus, whose
houses he filled to overflowing with disgrace and infamy. But he
reached the height of impiety and guilt in carrying off the royal boy.
For it did not appear enough to cover himself with infamy in offering
violence to women, unless he also outraged his own sex. This is true
adultery, which is done against nature. Whether he who committed these
crimes can be called Greatest is a matter of question, undoubtedly he
is not the Best; to which name corrupters, adulterers, and incestuous
persons have no claim; unless it happens that we men are mistaken in
terming those who do such things wicked and abandoned, and in judging
them most deserving of every kind of punishment. But Marcus Tullius was
foolish in upbraiding Caius Verres with adulteries, for Jupiter, whom
he worshipped, committed the same; and in upbraiding Publius Clodius
with incest with his sister, for he who was Best and Greatest had the
same person both as sister and wife.
CHAP. XI.--OF THE ORIGIN, LIFE, REIGN, NAME AND DEATH OF JUPITER, AND
OF SATURN AND URANUS.(2)
Who, then, is so senseless as to imagine that he
reigns in heaven who ought not even to have reigned on earth? It was
not without humour that a certain poet wrote of the triumph of Cupid:
in which book he not only represented Cupid as the most powerful of the
gods, but
also as their conqueror. For having enumerated the loves of each, by
which they had come into the power and dominion of Cupid, he sets in
array a procession, in which Jupiter, with the other gods, is led in
chains before the chariot of him, celebrating a triumph. This is
elegantly pictured by the poet, but it is not far removed from the
truth. For he who is without virtue, who is overpowered by desire and
wicked lusts, is not, as the poet feigned, in subjection to Cupid, but
to everlasting death. But let us cease to speak concerning morals; let
us examine the matter, in order that men may understand in what errors
they are miserably engaged. The common people imagine that Jupiter
reigns in heaven; both learned and unlearned are alike persuaded of
this. For both religion itself, and prayers, and hymns, and shrines,
and images demonstrate this. And yet they admit that he was also
descended from Saturn and Rhea. How can he appear a god, or be
believed, as the poet says, to be the author of men and all things,
when innumerable thousands of men existed before his birth--those, for
instance, who lived during the reign of Saturn, and enjoyed the light
sooner than Jupiter? I see that one god was king in the earliest times,
and another in the times that followed. It is therefore possible that
there may be another hereafter. For if the former kingdom was changed,
why should we not expect that the latter may possibly be changed,
unless by chance it was possible for Saturn to produce one more
powerful than himself, but impossible for Jupiter so to do? And yet the
divine government is always unchangeable; or if it is changeable, which
is an impossibility, it is undoubtedly changeable at all times.
Is it possible, then, for Jupiter to lose his
kingdom as his father lost it? It is so undoubtedly. For when that
deity had spared neither virgins nor married women, he abstained from
Thetis only in consequence of an oracle which foretold that whatever
son should be born from her would be greater than his father. And first
of all there was in him a want of foreknowledge not befitting a god;
for had not Themis related to him future events, he would not have
known them of his own accord. But if he is not divine, he is not indeed
a god; for the name of divinity is derived from god, as humanity is
from man. Then there was a consciousness of weakness; but he who has
feared, must plainly have feared one greater than himself. But he who
does this assuredly knows that he is not the greatest, since something
greater can exist. He also swears most solemnly by the Stygian marsh:
"Which is set forth the sole object of religious dread to the gods
above." What is this object of religious dread? Or by whom is it set
forth?
21
Is there, then, some mighty power which may punish the gods who commit
perjury? What is this great dread of the infernal marsh, if they are
immortal? Why should they fear that which none are about to see, except
those who are bound by the necessity of death? Why, then, do men raise
their eyes to the heaven? Why do they swear by the gods above, when the
gods above themselves have recourse to the infernal gods, and find
among them an object of veneration and worship? But what is the meaning
of that saying, that there are fates whom all the gods and Jupiter
himself obey? If the power of the Parcae is so great, that they are of
more avail than all the heavenly gods, and their ruler and lord
himself, why should not they be rather said to reign, since necessity
compels all the gods to obey their laws and ordinances? Now, who can
entertain a doubt that he who is subservient to anything cannot be
greatest? For if he were so, he would not receive fates, but would
appoint them. Now I return to another subject which I had omitted. In
the case of one goddess only he exercised self-restraint, though he was
deeply enamoured of her; but this was not from any virtue, but through
fear of a successor. But this fear plainly denotes one who is both
mortal and feeble, and of no weight: for at the very hour of his birth
he might have been put to death, as his elder brother had been put to
death; and if it had been possible for him to have lived, he would
never have given up the supreme power to a younger brother. But Jupiter
himself having been preserved by stealth, and stealthily nourished, was
called Zeus, or Zen,(1) not, as they imagine, from the fervor of
heavenly fire, or because he is the giver of life, or because he
breathes life into living creatures, which power belongs to God alone;
for how can he impart the breath of life who has himself received it
from another source? But he was so called because he was the first who
lived of the male children of Saturn. Men, therefore, might have had
another god as their ruler, if Saturn had not been deceived by his
wife. But it will be said the poets reigned these things. Whoever
entertains this opinion is in error. For they spoke respecting men; but
in order that they might embellish those whose memory they used to
celebrate with praises, they said that they were gods. Those things,
therefore, which they spoke concerning them as gods were feigned, and
not those which they spoke concerning them as men and this will be
manifest from an instance which we will bring forward. When about to
offer violence to Danae, he poured into her lap a great quantity of
golden coins. This was the price which he paid for her dishonour. But
the poets
who spoke about him as a god, that they might not weaken the authority
of his supposed majesty, feigned that he himself descended in a shower
of gold, making use of the same figure with which they speak of showers
of iron when they describe a multitude of darts and arrows. He is said
to have carried away Ganymede by an eagle; it is a picture of the
poets. But he either carried him off by a legion, which has an eagle
for its standard; or the ship on board of which he was placed had its
tutelary deity in the shape of an eagle, just as it had the effigy of a
bull when he seized Europa and conveyed her across the sea. In the same
manner, it is related that he changed Io, the daughter of Inachus, into
a heifer. And in order that she might escape the anger of Juno, just as
she was, now covered with bristly hair, and in the shape of a heifer,
she is said to have swam over the sea, and to have come into Egypt; and
there, having recovered her former appearance, she became the goddess
who is now called Isis. By what argument, then, can it be proved that
Europa did not sit on the bull, and that Io was not changed into a
heifer? Because there is a fixed day in the annals on which the voyage
of Isis is celebrated; from which fact we learn that she did not swim
across the sea, but sailed over. Therefore they who appear to
themselves to be wise because they understand that there cannot be a
living and earthly body in heaven, reject the whole story of Ganymede
as false, and perceive that the occurrence took place on earth,
inasmuch as the matter and the lust itself is earthly. The poets did
not therefore invent these transactions, for if they were to do so they
would be most worthless; but they added a certain colour to the
transactions.(2) For it was not for the purpose of detraction that they
said these things, but from a desire to embellish them. Hence men are
deceived; especially because, while they think that all these things
are feigned by the poets, they worship that of which they are ignorant.
For they do not know what is the limit of poetic licence, how far it is
allowable to proceed in fiction, since it is the business of the poet
with some gracefulness to change and transfer actual occurrences into
other representations by oblique transformations. But to feign the
whole of that which you relate, that is to be foolish and deceitful
rather than to be a poet.
But grant that they reigned those things which are
believed to be fabulous, did they also feign those things which are
related about the female deities and the marriages of the gods? Why,
then, are they so represented, and so worshipped? unless by chance not
the poets only, but painters also, and statuaries, speak falsehoods.
For if
22
this is the Jupiter who is called by you a god, if it is not he who was
born from Saturn and Ops, no other image but his alone ought to have
been placed in all the temples. What meaning have the effigies of
women? What the doubtful sex? in which, if this Jupiter is represented,
the very stones will confess that he is a man. They say that the poets
have spoken falsely, and yet they believe them: yes, truly they prove
by the fact itself that the poets did not speak falsely; for they so
frame the images of the gods, that, from the very diversity of sex, it
appears that these things which the poets say are true. For what other
conclusion does the image of Ganymede and the effigy of the eagle admit
of, when they are placed before the feet of Jupiter in the temples, and
are worshipped equally with himself, except that the memory of impious
guilt and debauchery remains for ever? Nothing, therefore, is wholly
invented by the poets: something perhaps is transferred and obscured by
oblique fashioning, under which the truth was enwrapped and concealed;
as that which was related about the dividing of the kingdoms by lot.
For they say that the heaven fell to the share of Jupiter, the sea to
Neptune, and the infernal regions to Pluto. Why was not the earth
rather taken as the third portion, except that the transaction took
place on the earth? Therefore it is true that they so divided and
portioned out the government of the world, that the empire of the east
fell to Jupiter, a part of the west was allotted to Pluto, who had the
surname of Agesilaus; because the region of the east, from which light
is given to mortals, seems to be higher, but the region of the west
lower. Thus they so veiled the truth under a fiction, that the truth
itself detracted nothing from the public persuasion. It is manifest
concerning the share of Neptune; for we say that his kingdom resembled
that unlimited authority possessed by Mark Antony, to whom the senate
had decreed the power of the maritime coast, that he might punish the
pirates, and tranquillize the whole sea. Thus all the maritime coasts,
together with the islands, fell to the lot of Neptune. How can this be
proved? Undoubtedly ancient stories attest it. Euhemerus, an ancient
author, who was of the city of Messene, collected the actions of
Jupiter and of the others, who are esteemed gods, and composed a
history from the titles and sacred inscriptions which were in the most
ancient temples, and especially in the sanctuary of the Triphylian
Jupiter, where an inscription indicated that a golden column had been
placed by Jupiter himself, on which column he wrote an account of his
exploits, that posterity might have a memorial of his actions. This
history was translated and followed by Ennius, whose words are these:
"Where Jupiter gives to Neptune the government of the sea, that he
might reign in all the islands and places bordering on the sea."
The accounts of the poets, therefore, are true, but
veiled with an outward covering and show. It is possible that Mount
Olympus may have supplied the poets with the hint for saying that
Jupiter obtained the kingdom of heaven, because Olympus is the common
name both of the mountain and of heaven. But the same history informs
us that Jupiter dwelt on Mount Olympus, when it says: "At that time
Jupiter spent the greatest part of his life on Mount Olympus; and they
used to resort to him thither for the administration of justice, if any
matters were disputed. Moreover, if any one had found out any new
invention which might be useful for human life, he used to come thither
and display it to Jupiter." The poets transfer many things after this
manner, not for the sake of speaking falsely against the objects of
their worship, but that they may by variously coloured figures add
beauty and grace to their poems. But they who do not understand the
manner, or the cause, or the nature of that which is represented by
figure, attack the poets as false and sacrilegious. Even the
philosophers were deceived by this error; for because these things
which are related about Jupiter appeared unsuited to the character of a
god, they introduced two Jupiters, one natural, the other fabulous.
They saw, on the one hand, that which was true, that he, forsooth,
concerning whom the poets speak, was man; but in the case of that
natural Jupiter, led by the common practice of superstition, they
committed an error, inasmuch as they transferred the name of a man to
God, who, as we have already said, because He is one only, has no need
of a name. But it is undeniable that he is Jupiter who was born from
Ops and Saturn. It is therefore an empty persuasion on the part of
those who give the name of Jupiter to the Supreme God. For some are in
the habit of defending their errors by this excuse; for, when convinced
of the unity of God, since they cannot deny this, they affirm that they
worship Him, but that it is their pleasure that He should be called
Jupiter. But what can be more absurd than this? For Jupiter is not
accustomed to be worshipped without the accompanying worship of his
wife and daughter. From which his real nature is evident; nor is it
lawful for that name to be transferred thither,(1) where there is
neither any Minerva nor Juno. Why should I say that the peculiar
meaning of this name does not express a divine, but human power? For
Cicero explains the names Jupiter and Juno as being derived from giving
help;(2) and Jupiter is so called as if he were a helping father,--a
name which is ill adapted to God:
23
for to help is the part of a man conferring some aid upon one who is a
stranger, and in a case where the benefit is small. No one implores God
to help him, but to preserve him, to give him life and safety, which is
a much greater and more important matter than to help.
And since we are speaking of a father, no father is
said to help his sons when he begets or brings them up. For that
expression is too insignificant to denote the magnitude of the benefit
derived from a father. How ranch more unsuitable is it to God, who is
our true Father, by whom we exist, and whose we are altogether, by whom
we are formed, endued with life, and enlightened, who bestows upon us
life, gives us safety, and supplies us with various kinds of food! He
has no apprehension of the divine benefits who thinks that he is only
aided by God. Therefore he is not only ignorant, but impious, who
disparages the excellency of the supreme power under the name of
Jupiter. Wherefore, if both from his actions and character we have
proved that Jupiter was a man, and reigned on earth, it only remains
that we should also investigate his death. Ennius, in his sacred
history, having described all the actions which he performed in his
life, at the close thus speaks: Then Jupiter, when he had five times
made a circuit of the earth, and bestowed governments upon all
his friends and relatives, and left laws to men, provided them with a
settled mode of life and corn, and given them many other benefits, and
having been honoured with immortal glory and remembrance, left lasting
memorials to his friends, and when his age(1) was almost spent, he
changed(2) his life in Crete, and departed to the gods. And the
Curetes. his sons, took charge of him, and honoured him; and his tomb
is in Crete, in the town of Cnossus, and Vesta is said to have founded
this city; and on his tomb is an inscription in ancient Greek
characters, "Zan Kronou," which is in Latin. "Jupiter the son of
Saturn." This undoubtedly is not handed down by poets. but by writers
of ancient events; and these things are so true, that they are
confirmed by some verses of the Sibyls, to this effect:--
"Inanimate demons, images of the dead,
Whose tombs the ill-fated Crete possesses as a boast."
Cicero, in his treatise concerning the Nature of the
Gods, having said that three Jupiters were enumerated by theologians,
adds that the third was of Crete, the son of Saturn, and that his
tomb is shown in that island. How, therefore, can a god be alive
in one place, and dead in another; in one place have a temple, and in
another a tomb? Let the Romans then know that their Capitol, that
is the chief head of their
objects of public veneration, is nothing but an empty monument.
Let us now come to his father who reigned before
him, and who perhaps had more power in himself, because he is said to
be born from the meeting of such great elements. Let us see what there
was in him worthy of a god, especially that he is related to have had
the golden age, because in his reign there was justice in the earth. I
find something in him which was not in his son. For what is so
befitting the character of a god, as a just government and an age of
piety? But when, on the same principle, I reflect that he is a son, I
cannot consider him as the Supreme God; for I see that there is
something more ancient than himself,--namely, the heaven and the earth.
But I am in search of a God beyond whom nothing has any existence, who
is the source and origin of all things. He must of necessity exist who
framed the heaven itself, and laid the foundations of the earth. But if
Saturn was born from these, as it is supposed, how can he be the chief
God, since he owes his origin to another? Or who presided over the
universe before the birth of Saturn? But this, as I recently said, is a
fiction of the poets. For it was impossible that the senseless
elements, which are separated by so long an interval, should meet
together and give birth to a son, or that he who was born should not at
all resemble his parents, but should have a form which his parents did
not possess.
Let us therefore inquire what degree of truth lies
hid under this figure. Minucius Felix, in his treatise which has the
title of Octavius,(3) alleged these proofs: "That Saturn, when he had
been banished by his son, and had come into Italy, was called the son
of Coelus (heaven), because we are accustomed to say that those whose
virtue we admire, or those who have unexpectedly arrived, have fallen
from heaven; and that he was called the son of earth, because we name
those who are born from unknown parents sons of earth." These things,
indeed, have some resemblance to the truth, but are not true, because
it is evident that even during his reign he was so esteemed. He might
have argued thus: That Saturn, being a very powerful king, in order
that the memory of his parents might be preserved, gave their names to
the heaven and earth, whereas these were before called by other names,
for which reason we know that names were applied both to mountains and
rivers. For when the poets speak of the offspring of Atlas, or of the
river Inachus, they do not absolutely say that men could possibly be
born from inanimate objects; but they undoubtedly indicate those who
were born from those men, who either during their lives or after their
death gave their
24
names to mountains or rivers. For that was a common practice among the
ancients, and especially among the Greeks. Thus we have heard that seas
received the names of those who had fallen into them, as the Aegean,
the Icarian, and the Hellespont. In Latium, also, Aventinus gave his
name to the mountain on which he was buried; and Tiberinus, or Tiber,
gave his name to the river in which he was drowned. No wonder, then, if
the names of those who had given birth to most powerful kings were
attributed to the heaven and earth. Therefore it appears that Saturn
was not born from heaven, which is impossible, but from that man who
bore the name of Uranus. And Trismegistus attests the truth of this;
for when he said that very few had existed in whom there was perfect
learning, he mentioned by name among these his relatives, Uranus,
Saturn, and Mercury. And because he was ignorant of these things, he
gave another account of the matter; how he might have argued, I have
shown. Now I will say in what manner, at what time, and by whom this
was done; for it was not Saturn who did this, but Jupiter. Ennius thus
relates in his sacred history: "Then Pan leads him to the mountain,
which is called the pillar of heaven. Having ascended thither, he
surveyed the lands far and wide, and there on that mountain he builds
an altar to Coelus; and Jupiter was the first who offered sacrifice on
that altar. In that place he looked up to heaven, by which name we now
call it, and that which was above the world which was called the
firmament,(1) and he gave to the heaven its name from the name of his
grandfather; and Jupiter in prayer first gave the name of heaven to
that which was called firmament,(1) and he burnt entire the victim
which he there offered in sacrifice." Nor is it here only that Jupiter
is found to have offered sacrifice. Caesar also, in Aratus, relates
that Aglaosthenes says that when he was setting out from the island of
Naxos against the Titans, and was offering sacrifice on the shore, an
eagle flew to Jupiter as an omen, and that the victor received it as a
good token, and placed it under his own protection. But the sacred
history testifies that even beforehand an eagle had sat upon his head,
and portended to him the kingdom. To whom, then, could Jupiter have
offered sacrifice, except to his grandfather Coelus, who, according to
the saying of Euhemerus,(2) died in Oceania, and was buried in the town
of Aulatia?
CHAP. XII.--THAT THE STOICS TRANSFER THE FIGMENTS OF THE POETS TO A
PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM.
Since we have brought to light the mysteries of the
poets, and have found out the parents of Saturn, let us return to his
virtues and actions. He was, they say, just in his rule. First, from
this very circumstance he is not now a god, inasmuch as he has ceased
to be. In the next place, he was not even just, but impious not only
towards his sons, whom he devoured, but also towards his father, whom
he is said to have mutilated. And this may perhaps have happened in
truth. But men, having regard to the element which is called the
heaven, reject the whole fable as most foolishly invented; though the
Stoics, (according to their custom) endeavour to transfer it to a
physical system, whose opinion Cicero has laid down in his treatise
concerning the Nature of the Gods. They held, he says, that the highest
and ethereal nature of heaven, that is, of fire, which by itself
produced all things, was without that part of the body which contained
the productive organs. Now this theory might have been suitable to
Vesta, if she were called a male. For it is on this account that they
esteem Vesta to be a virgin, inasmuch as fire is an incorruptible
element; and nothing can be born from it, since it consumes all things,
whatever it has seized upon. Ovid in the Fasti says:(3) "Nor do you
esteem Vesta to be anything else than a living flame; and you see no
bodies produced from flame. Therefore she is truly a virgin, for she
sends forth no seed, nor receives it, and loves the attendants of
virginity."
This also might have been ascribed to Vulcan, who
indeed is supposed to be fire, and yet the poets did not mutilate him.
It might also have been ascribed to the sun, in whom is the nature and
cause of the productive powers. For without the fiery heat of the sun
nothing could be born, or have increase; so that no other element has
greater need of productive organs than heat, by the nourishment of
which all things are conceived, produced, and supported. Lastly, even
if the case were as they would have it, why should we suppose that
Coelus was mutilated, rather than that he was born without productive
organs? For if he produces by himself, it is plain that he had no need
of productive organs, since he gave birth to Saturn himself; but if he
had them, and suffered mutilation from his son, the origin of all
things and all nature would have perished. Why should I say that they
deprive Saturn himself not only of divine, but also of human
intelligence, when they affirm that Saturn is he who comprises the
course and change of the spaces and seasons, and that he has that very
25
name in Greek? For he is called Cronos, which is the same as Chronos,
that is, a space of time. But he is called Saturn, because he is
satiated with years. These are the words of Cicero, setting forth the
opinion of the Stoics: "The worthlessness of these things any one may
readily understand. For if Saturn is the son of Coelus, how could Time
have been born from Coelus, or Coelus have been mutilated by Time, or
afterwards could Time have been despoiled of his sovereignty by his son
Jupiter? Or how was Jupiter born from Time? Or with what years could
eternity be satiated, since it has no limit?"(1)
CHAP. XIII.- HOW VAIN AND TRIFLING ARE THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
STOICS RESPECTING THE GODS, AND IN THEM CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF
JUPITER, CONCERNING SATURN AND OPS.
If therefore these speculations of the philosophers
are trifling, what remains, except that we believe it to be a matter of
fact that, being a man, he suffered mutilation from a man? Unless by
chance any one esteems him as a god who feared a co-heir; whereas, if
he had possessed any divine knowledge, he ought not to have mutilated
his father, but himself, to prevent the birth of Jupiter, who deprived
him of the possession of his kingdom. And he also, when he had married
his sister Rhea, whom in Latin we call Ops, is said to have been warned
by an oracle not to bring up his male children, because it would come
to pass that he should be driven into banishment by a son. And being in
fear of this, it is plain that he did not devour his sons, as the
fables report, but put them to death; although it is written in sacred
history that Saturn and Ops, and other men, were at that time
accustomed to eat human flesh, but that Jupiter, who gave to men laws
and civilization, was the first who by an edict prohibited the use of
that food. Now if this is true, what justice can there possibly have
been in him? But let us suppose it to be a fictitious story that Saturn
devoured his sons, only true after a certain fashion; must we then
suppose, with the vulgar, that he has eaten his sons, who has carried
them out to burial? But when Ops had brought forth Jupiter, she stole
away the infant, and secretly sent him into Crete to be nourished.
Again, I cannot but blame his want of foresight. For why did he receive
an oracle from another, and not from himself? Being placed in heaven,
why did he not see the things which were taking place on earth? Why did
the Corybantes with their cymbals escape his notice? Lastly, why did
there exist any greater force which might overcome his power?
Doubtless, being aged, he was easily
overcome by one who was young, and despoiled of his sovereignty. He was
therefore banished and went into exile; and after long wanderings came
into Italy in a ship, as Ovid relates in his Fasti:--
"The cause of the ship remains to be explained. The
scythe-bearing god came to the Tuscan river in a ship, having first
traversed the world."
Janus received him wandering and destitute; and the
ancient coins are a proof of this, on which there is a representation
of Janus with a double face, and on the other side a ship; as the same
poet adds:--
"But pious posterity represented a ship on the coin,
bearing testimony to the arrival of the stranger god."
Not only therefore all the poets, but the writers
also of ancient histories and events, agree that he was a man, inasmuch
as they handed down to memory his actions in Italy: of Greek writers,
Diodorus and Thallus; of Latin writers, Nepos, Cassius, and Varro. For
since men lived in Italy after a rustic fashion,(2)--
"He brought the race to union first,
Erewhile on mountain tops dispersed,
And gave them statutes to obey,
And willed the land wherein he lay
Should Latium's title bear."
Does any one imagine him to be a god, who was driven into banishment,
who fled, who lay hid? No one is so senseless. For he who flees, or
lies hid, must fear both violence and death. Orpheus, who lived in more
recent times than his, openly relates that Saturn reigned on earth and
among men:--
"First Cronus
ruled o'er men on earth,
And then
from Cronus sprung the mighty king,
The widely
sounding Zeus."
And also our own Maro says:(3)--
"This life the
golden Saturn led on earth;"
and in another place:(4)--
"That was the storied age of gold,
So peacefully, serenely rolled
The years beneath his reign."
The poet did not say in the former passage that he led this life in
heaven, nor in the latter passage that he reigned over the gods above.
From which it appears that he was a king on earth; and this he declares
more plainly in another place:(5)--
"Restorer of the age of gold,
In lands where Saturn ruled of old."
26
Ennius, indeed, in his translation of Euhemerus says that Saturn was
not the first who reigned, but his father Uranus. In the beginning, he
says, Coelus first had the supreme power on the earth. He instituted
and prepared that kingdom in conjunction with his brothers. There is no
great dispute, if there is doubt, on the part of the greatest
authorities respecting the son and the father. But it is possible that
each may have happened: that Uranus first began to be pre-eminent in
power among the rest, and to have the chief place, but not the kingdom;
and that afterwards Saturn acquired greater resources, and took the
title of king.
CHAP. XIV.--WHAT THE SACRED HISTORY OF EUHEMERUS AND ENNIUS TEACHES
CONCERNING THE GODS.
Now, since the sacred history differs in some degree
from those things which we have related, let us open those things which
are contained in the true writings, that we may not, in accusing
superstitions, appear to follow and approve of the follies of the
poets. These are the words of Ennius: "Afterwards Saturn married Ops.
Titan, who was older than Saturn, demands the kingdom for himself. Upon
this their mother Vesta, and their sisters Ceres and Ops, advise Saturn
not to give up the kingdom to his brother. Then Titan, who was inferior
in person to Saturn, on that account, and because he saw that his
mother and sisters were using their endeavours that Saturn might reign,
yielded the kingdom to him. He therefore made an agreement with Saturn,
that if any male children should be born to him, he would not bring
them up. He did so for this purpose, that the kingdom might return to
his own sons. Then, when a son was first born to Saturn, they slew him.
Afterwards twins were born, Jupiter and Juno. Upon this they present
Juno to the sight of Saturn, and secretly hide Jupiter, and give him to
Vesta to be brought up, concealing him from Saturn. Ops also brings
forth Neptune without the knowledge of Saturn, and secretly hides him.
In the same manner Ops brings forth twins by a third birth, Pluto and
Glauca. Pluto in Latin is Dispater; others call him Orcus. Upon this
they show to Saturn the daughter Glauca, and conceal and hide the son
Pluto. Then Glauca dies while yet young." This is the lineage of
Jupiter and his brothers, as these things are written, and the
relationship is handed down to us after this manner from the sacred
narrative. Also shortly afterwards he introduces these things: "Then
Titan, when he learned that sons were born to Saturn, and secretly
brought up, secretly takes with him his sons, who are called Titans,
and seizes his brother Saturn and Ops, and encloses
them within a wall, and places over them a guard."
The truth of this history is taught by the
Erythraean Sibyl, who speaks almost the same things, with a few
discrepancies, which do not affect the subject-matter itself. Therefore
Jupiter is freed from the charge of the greatest wickedness, according
to which he is reported to have bound his father with fetters; for this
was the deed of his uncle Titan, because he, contrary to his promise
and oath, had brought up male children. The rest of the history is thus
put together. It is said that Jupiter, when grown up, having heard that
his father and mother had been surrounded with a guard and imprisoned,
came with a great multitude of Cretans, and conquered Titan and his
sons in an engagement, and rescued his parents from imprisonment,
restored the kingdom to his father, and thus returned into Crete. Then,
after these things, they say that an oracle was given to Saturn,
bidding him to take heed lest his son should expel him from the
kingdom; that he, for the sake of weakening the oracle and avoiding the
danger, laid an ambush for Jupiter to kill him; that Jupiter, having
learned the plot, claimed the kingdom for himself afresh, and banished
Saturn; and that he, when he had been tossed over all lands, followed
by armed men whom Jupiter had sent to seize or put him to death,
scarcely found a place of concealment in Italy.
CHAP. XV.--HOW THEY WHO WERE
MEN OBTAINED THE NAME OF GODS.
Now, since it is evident from these things that they
were men, it is not difficult to see in what I manner they began to be
called gods.(1) For if there were no kings before Saturn or Uranus, on
account of the small number of men who lived a rustic life without any
ruler, there is no doubt but in those times men began to exalt the king
himself, and his whole family, with the highest praises and with new
honours, so that they even called them gods; whether on account of
their wonderful excellence, men as yet rude and simple really
entertained this opinion, or, as is commonly the case, in flattery of
present power, or on account of the benefits by which they were set in
order and reduced to a civilized state. Afterwards the kings
themselves, since they were beloved by those whose life they had
civilized, after their death left regret of themselves. Therefore men
formed images of them, that they might derive some consolation from the
contemplation of their likenesses; and proceeding further through love
of their worth,(2) they began to reverence the memory of the deceased,
that
27
they might appear to be grateful for their services, and might attract
their successors to a desire of ruling well. And this Cicero teaches in
his treatise on the Nature of the Gods, saying "But the life of men and
common intercourse led to the exalting to heaven by fame and goodwill
men who were distinguished by their benefits. On this account Hercules,
on this Castor and Pollux, Aesculapius and Liber" were ranked with the
gods. And in another passage: "And in most states it may be understood,
that for the sake of exciting valour, or that the men most
distinguished for bravery might more readily encounter danger on
account of the state, their memory was consecrated with the honour paid
to the immortal gods." It was doubtless on this account that the Romans
consecrated their Caesars, and the Moors their kings. Thus by degrees
religious honours began to be paid to them; while those who had known
them, first instructed their own children and grandchildren, and
afterwards all their posterity, in the practice of this rite. And yet
these great kings, on account of the celebrity of their name, were
honoured in all provinces.
But separate people privately honoured the founders
of their nation or city with the highest veneration, whether they were
men distinguished for bravery, or women admirable for chastity; as the
Egyptians honoured Isis, the Moors Juba, the Macedonians Cabirus, the
Carthaginians Uranus, the Latins Faunus, the Sabines Sancus, the Romans
Quirinus. In the same manner truly Athens worshipped Minerva, Samos
Juno, Paphos Venus, Lemnos Vulcan, Naxos Liber, and Delos Apollo. And
thus various sacred rites have been undertaken among different peoples
and countries, inasmuch as men desire to show gratitude to their
princes, and cannot find out other honours which they may confer upon
the dead. Moreover, the piety of their successors contributed in a
great degree to the error; for, in order that they might appear to be
born from a divine origin, they paid divine honours to their parents,
and ordered that they should be paid by others. Can any one doubt in
what way the honours paid to the gods were instituted, when he reads in
Virgil the words of Aeneas giving commands to his friends:(1)--
"Now with full cups
libation pour
To mighty Jove,
whom all adore,
Invoke Anchises'
blessed soul."
And he attributes to him not only immortality, but also power over the
winds:(2)--
"Invoke the winds to
speed our flight,
And pray that he
we hold so dear
May take our
offerings year by year,
Soon as our
promised town we raise,
In temples
sacred to his praise."
In truth, Liber and Pan, and Mercury and Apollo, acted in the same way
respecting Jupiter, and afterwards their successors did the same
respecting them. The poets also added their influence, and by means of
poems composed to give pleasure, raised them to the heaven; as is the
case with those who flatter kings, even though wicked, with false
panegyrics. And this evil originated with the Greeks, whose levity
being furnished with the ability and copiousness of speech, cited in an
incredible degree mists of falsehoods. And thus from admiration of them
they first undertook their sacred rites, and handed them down to all
nations. On account of this vanity the Sibyl thus rebukes them:--
"Why trustest thou, O Greece, to princely men?
Why to the dead dost offer empty gifts?
Thou offerest to idols; this error who suggested,
That thou shouldst leave the presence of the mighty God,
And make these offerings?"
Marcus Tullius, who was not only an accomplished
orator, but also a philosopher, since he alone was an imitator of
Plato, in that treatise in which he consoled himself concerning the
death of his daughter, did not hesitate to say that those gods who were
publicly worshipped were men. And this testimony of his ought to be
esteemed the more weighty, because he held the priesthood of the
augurs, and testifies that he worships and venerates the same gods. And
thus within the compass of a few verses he has presented us with two
facts. For while he declared his intention of consecrating the image of
his daughter in the same manner in which they were consecrated by the
ancients, he both taught that they were dead, and showed the origin of
a vain superstition. "Since, in truth,"
he says, "we see many men and women among the number of the gods, and
venerate their shrines, held in the greatest honour in cities and in
the country, let us assent to the wisdom of those to whose talents and
inventions we owe it that life is altogether adorned with laws and
institutions, and established on a firm basis. And if any living being
was worthy of being consecrated, assuredly it was this. If the
offspring of Cadmus, or Amphitryon, or Tyndarus, was worthy of being
extolled by fame to the heaven, the same honour ought undoubtedly to be
appropriated to her. And this indeed I will do; and with the
approbation of the gods, I will place you the best and most learned of
all women in their assembly. and will consecrate you to the estimation
of men." Some one may perhaps say that Cicero raved through excessive
grief. But, in truth, the whole of that speech, which was perfect both
in learning and in its examples, and in the very style of expression,
gave no indications of a dis-
28
tempered mind, but of constancy and judgment; and this very sentence
exhibits no sign of grief. For I do not think that he could have
written with such variety, and copiousness, and ornament, had not his
grief been mitigated by reason itself, and the consolation of his
friends and length of time. Why should I mention what he says in his
books concerning the Republic, and also concerning glory? For in his
treatise on the Laws, in which work, following the example of Plato, he
wished to set forth those laws which he thought that a just and wise
state would employ, he thus decreed concerning religion:(1) "Let them
reverence the gods, both those who have always been regarded as gods of
heaven, and those whose services to men have placed them in heaven:
Hercules, Liber, Aesculapius, Castor, Pollux, and Quirinus." Also in
his Tusculan Disputations,(2) when he said that heaven was almost
entirely filled with the human race, he said: "If, indeed, I should
attempt to investigate ancient accounts, and to extract from them those
things which the writers of Greece have handed down, even those who are
held in the highest rank as gods will be found to have gone from us
into heaven. Inquire whose sepulchres are pointed out in Greece:
remember, since you are initiated, what things are handed down in the
mysteries; and then at length you will understand how widely this
persuasion is spread." He appealed, as it is plain, to the conscience
of Atticus, that it might he understood from the very mysteries that
all those who are worshipped were men; and when he acknowledged this
without hesitation in the case of Hercules, Liber, Aesculapius, Castor
and Pollux, he was afraid openly to make the same admission respecting
Apollo and Jupiter their fathers, and likewise respecting Neptune,
Vulcan, Mars, and Mercury, whom he termed the greater gods; and
therefore he says that this opinion is widely spread, that we may
understand the same concerning Jupiter and the other more ancient gods:
for if the ancients consecrated their memory in the same manner in
which he says that he will consecrate the image and the name of his
daughter, those who mourn may be pardoned, but those who believe it
cannot be pardoned. For who is so infatuated as to believe that heaven
is opened to the dead at the consent and pleasure of a senseless
multitude? Or that any one is able to give to another that which he
himself does not possess? Among the Romans, Julius was made a god,
because it pleased a guilty man, Antony; Quirinus was made a god,
because it seemed good to the shepherds, though one of them was the
murderer of his twin brother, the other the destroyer of his country.
But if Antony had not
been consul, in return for his services towards the state Caius Caesar
would have been without the honour even of a dead man, and that, too,
by the advice of his father-in-law Piso, and of his relative Lucius
Caesar, who opposed the celebration of the funeral, and by the advice
of Dolabella the consul, who overthrew the column in the forum, that
is, his monuments, and purified the forum. For Ennius declares that
Romulus was regretted by his people, since he represents the people as
thus speaking, through grief for their lost king: "O Romulus, Romulus,
say what a guardian of your country the gods produced you? You brought
us forth within the regions of light. O father, O sire, O race,
descended from the gods." On account of this regret they more readily
believed Julius Proculus uttering falsehoods, who was suborned by the
fathers to announce to the populace that he had seen the king in a form
more majestic than that of a man; and that he had given command to the
people that a temple should be built to his honour, that he was a god,
and was called by the name of Quirinus. By which deed he at once
persuaded the people that Romulus had gone to the gods, and freed the
senate from the suspicion of having slain the king.
CHAP, XVI.--BY WHAT ARGUMENT IT IS PROVED THAT THOSE
WHO ARE DISTINGUISHED BY A DIFFERENCE OF SEX CANNOT BE GODS.(3)
I might be content with those things which I
have related, but there still remain many things which are
necessary for the work which I have undertaken. For although, by
destroying the principal part of superstitions, I have taken away the
whole, yet it pleases me to follow up the remaining parts, and more
fully to refute so inveterate a persuasion, that men may at length be
ashamed and repent of their errors. This is a great undertaking, and
worthy of a man. "I proceed to release the minds of men from the ties
of superstitions," as Lucretius(4) says; and be indeed was unable to
effect this, because he brought forward nothing true. This is our duty,
who both assert the existence of the true God and refute false deities.
They, therefore, who entertain the opinion that the poets have invented
fables about the gods, and yet believe in the existence of female
deities, and worship them, are unconciously brought back to that which
they had denied--that they have sexual intercourse, and bring forth.
For it is impossible that the two sexes can have been instituted except
for the sake of generation. But a difference of sex being admitted,
they do not perceive that conception follows as a consequence. And this
cannot
29
be the case with a God. But let the matter be as they imagine; for they
say that there are sons of Jupiter and of the other gods. Therefore new
gods are born, and that indeed daily, for gods are not surpassed in
fruitfulness by men. It follows that all things are full of gods
without number, since forsooth none of them dies. For since the
multitude of men is incredible, and their number not to be
estimated--though, as they are born, they must of necessity die--what
must we suppose to be the case with the gods who have been born through
so many ages, and have remained immortal? How is it, then, that so few
are worshipped? Unless we think by any means that there are two sexes
of the gods, not for the sake of generation, but for mere
gratification, and that the gods practise those things which men are
ashamed to do, and to submit to. But when any are said to be born from
any, it follows that they always continue to be born, if they are born
at any time; or if they ceased at any time to be born, it is befitting
that we should know why or at what time they so ceased. Seneca, in his
books of moral philosophy, not without some plesantry, asks, "What is
the reason why Jupiter, who is represented by the poets as most
addicted to lust, ceased to beget children? Was it that he was become a
sexagenarian, and was restrained by the Papian law?(1) Or did he obtain
the privileges conferred by having three children? Or did the sentiment
at length occur to him, 'What you have done to another, you may expect
from another;' and does he fear lest any one should act towards him as
he himself did to Saturn?" But let those who maintain that they are
gods, see in what manner they can answer this argument which I shall
bring forward. If there are two sexes of the gods, conjugal
intercourse follows; and if this takes place, they must have houses,
for they are not without virtue and a sense of shame, so as to do this
openly and promiscuously, as we see that the brute animals do. If they
have houses, it follows that they also have cities; and for this we
have the authority of Ovid, who says, "The multitude of gods occupy
separate places; in this front the powerful and illustrious inhabitants
of heaven have placed their dwellings." If they have cities, they will
also have fields. Now who cannot see the consequence,--namely, that
they plough and cultivate their lands? And this is done for the sake of
food. Therefore they are mortal. And this argument is of the same
weight when reversed. For if they have no lands, they have no cities;
and if they have no cities, they are also without houses. And if they
have no houses, they have no conjugal intercourse; and if they are
without this, they have no female sex. But
we see that there are females among the gods also. Therefore there are
not gods. If any one is able, let him do away with this argument. For
one thing so follows the other, that it is impossible not to admit
these last things. But no one will refute even the former argument. Of
the two sexes the one is stronger, the other weaker. For the males are
more robust, the females more feeble. But a god is not liable to
feebleness; therefore there is no female sex. To this is added
that last conclusion of the former argument, that there are no gods,
since there are females also among the gods.
CHAP. XVII.--CONCERNING THE SAME OPINION OF THE STOICS, AND CONCERNING
THE HARDSHIPS AND DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF THE GODS.
On these accounts the Stoics form a different
conception of the gods; and because they do not perceive what the truth
is, they attempt to join them with the system of natural things. And
Cicero, following them, brought forward this opinion respecting the
gods and their religions. Do you see then, he says, how an argument has
been drawn from physical subjects which have been well and usefully
found out, to the existence of false and fictitious gods? And this
circumstance gave rise to false opinions and turbulent errors, and
almost old-womanly superstitions. For both the forms of the gods, and
their ages, and clothing and ornaments, are known to us; and moreover
their races, and marriages, and all their relationships, and all things
reduced to the similitude of human infirmity. What can be said more
plain, more true? The chief of the Roman philosophy, and invested with
the most honourable priesthood, refutes the false and fictitious gods,
and testifies that their worship consists of almost old-womanly
superstitions: he complains that men are entangled in false opinions
and turbulent errors. For the whole of his third book respecting the
Nature of the Gods altogether overthrows and destroys all religion.
What more, therefore, is expected from us? Can we surpass Cicero in
eloquence? By no means; but confidence was wanting to him, being
ignorant of the truth, as he himself simply acknowledges in the same
work. For he says that he can more easily say what is not, than what
is; that is, that he is aware that the received system is false, but is
ignorant of the truth.(2) It is plain, therefore, that those who are
supposed to be gods were but men, and that their memory was consecrated
after their death. And on this account also different ages and
established representations of form are assigned to each, be-
30
cause their images were fashioned in that dress and of that age at
which death arrested each.
Let us consider, if you please, the hardships of the
unfortunate gods. Isis lost her son; Ceres her daughter; Latona,
expelled and driven about over the earth, with difficulty found a small
island(1) where she might bring forth. The mother of the gods both
loved a beautiful youth, and also mutilated him when found in company
with a harlot; and on this account her sacred rites are now celebrated
by the Galli(2) as priests. Juno violently persecuted harlots, because
she was not able to conceive by her brother.(3) Varro writes, that the
island Samos was before called Parthenia, because Juno there grew up,
and there also was married to Jupiter. Accordingly there is a most
noble and ancient temple of hers at Samos, and an image fashioned in
the dress of a bride; and her annual sacred rites are celebrated after
the manner of a marriage. If, therefore, she grew up, if she was at
first a virgin and afterwards a woman, he who does not understand that
she was a human being confesses himself a brute. Why should I speak of
the lewdness of Venus, who ministered to the lusts of all, not only
gods, but also men? For from her infamous debauchery with Mars she
brought forth Harmonia; from Mercury she brought forth Hermaphroditus,
who was born of both sexes; from Jupiter Cupid; from Anchines AEneas;
from Butes Eryx; from Adonis she could bring forth no offspring,
because he was struck by a boar, and slain, while yet a boy. And she
first instituted the art of courtesanship, as is contained in the
sacred history; and taught women in Cyprus to seek gain by
prostitution, which she commanded for this purpose, that she alone
might not appear unchaste and a courter of men beyond other females.
Has she, too, any claim to religious worship, on whose part more
adulteries are recorded than births? But not even were those virgins
who are celebrated able to preserve their chastity inviolate. For from
what source can we suppose that Erichthonius was born? Was it from the
earth, as the poets would have it appear? But the circumstance itself
cries out. For when Vulcan had made arms for the gods, and Jupiter had
given him the option of asking for whatever reward he might wish, and
had sworn, according to his custom, by the infernal lake, that he would
refuse him nothing which he might ask, then the lame artificer demanded
Minerva in marriage. Upon this the excellent and mighty Jupiter, being
bound by so great an oath, was not able to refuse; he, however, advised
Minerva to oppose and defend her chastity. Then in that
struggle they say that Vulcan shed his seed upon the earth, from which
source Erichthonius was born: and that this name was given to him from
<greek>eridos</greek> and
<greek>kqonos</greek>, that is, from the contest and
the ground. Why, then, did she, a virgin, entrust that boy
shut up with a dragon and sealed to three virgins born from Cecrops? An
evident case of incest, as I think, which can by no means be glossed
over. Another, when she had almost lost her lover, who was torn to
pieces by his madened horses, called in the most excellent physician
AEsculapius for the treatment of the youth; and when he was healed,
"Trivia kind her favourite bides,
And to Egeria's care confides,
To live in woods obscure and lone,
And lose in Virbius' name his own."(4)
What is the meaning of this so diligent and anxious care? Why this
secret abode? Why this banishment, either to so great a distance, or to
a woman, or into solitude? Why, in the next place, the change of name?
Lastly, why such a determined hatred of horses? What do all these
things imply, but the consciousness of dishonour, and a love by no
means consistent with a virgin? There was evidently a reason why she
undertook so great a labour for a youth so faithful, who had
refused compliance with the love of his stepmother.
CHAP. XVIII.--ON THE CONSECRATION OF GODS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE BENEFITS
WHICH THEY CONFERRED UPON MEN.
In this place also they are to be refuted, who not
only admit that gods have been made from men, but even boast of it as a
subject of praise, either on account of their valour, as Hercules, or
of their gifts, as Ceres and Liber, or of the arts which they
discovered, as AEsculapius or Minerva. But how foolish these things
are, and how unworthy of being the causes why men should contaminate
themselves with inexpiable guilt, and become enemies to God, in
contempt of whom they undertake offerings to the dead, I will show from
particular instances. They say that it is virtue(5) which exalts man to
heaven,--not, however, that concerning which philosophers discuss,
which consists in goods of the soul, but this connected with the body,
which is called fortitude; and since this was pre-eminent in Hercules,
it is believed to have deserved immortality. Who is so foolishly
senseless as to judge strength of body to be a divine or even a human
good, when it has been assigned in greater measure to cattle, and it is
often impaired by one disease, or is lessened by old age
31
itself, and altogether fails? And so Hercules, when he perceived that
his muscles were disfigured by ulcers, neither wished to be healed nor
to grow old, that he might not at any time appear to have less strength
or comeliness than he once had.(1) They supposed that he ascended into
heaven from the funeral pile on which he had burnt himself alive; and
those very qualities which they most foolishly admired, they expressed
by statues and images, and consecrated, so that they might for ever
remain as memorials of the folly of those who had believed that gods
owed their origin to the slaughter of beasts. But this, perchance, may
be the fault of the Greeks, who always esteemed most trifling things as
of the greatest consequence. What is the case of our own countrymen?
Are they more wise? For they despise valour in an athlete, because it
produces no injury; but in the case of a king, because it occasions
widely-spread disasters, they so admire it as to imagine that brave and
warlike generals are admitted to the assembly of the gods, and that
there is no other way to immortality than to lead armies, to lay waste
the territory of others, to destroy cities, to overthrow towns, to put
to death or enslave free peoples. Truly the greater number of men they
have cast down, plundered, and slain, so much the more noble and
distinguished do they think themselves; and ensnared by the show of
empty glory, they give to their crimes the name of virtue. I would
rather that they should make to themselves gods from the slaughter of
wild beasts, than approve of an immortality so stained with blood. If
any one has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and
wicked, nor do they think it lawful for him to be admitted to this
earthly abode of the gods. But he who has slaughtered countless
thousands of men, has inundated plains with blood, and infected rivers,
is not only admitted into the temple, but even into heaven. In Ennius
Africanus thus speaks: "If it is permitted any one to ascend to the
regions of the gods above, the greatest gate of heaven is open to me
alone." Because, in truth, he extinguished and destroyed a great part
of the human race. Oh how great the darkness in which you were
involved, O Africanus, or rather O poet, in that you imagined
the ascent to heaven to be open to men through slaughters
and bloodshed! And Cicero also assented to this delusion. It is so in
truth, he said, O Africanus, for the same gate was open to Hercules; as
though he himself had been doorkeeper in heaven at the time when this
took place. I indeed cannot determine whether I should think it a
subject of grief or of ridicule, when I see grave and learned, and, as
they appear to themselves, wise men, involved in such miserable waves
of errors. If this is the virtue which renders us immortal, I for my
part should prefer to die, rather than to be the cause of destruction
to as many as possible. If immortality can be obtained in no other way
than by bloodshed, what will be the result if all shall agree to live
in harmony? And this may undoubtedly be realized, if men would cast
aside their pernicious and impious madness, and live in innocence and
jus rice. Shall no one, then, be worthy of heaven? Shall virtue perish,
because it will not be permitted men to rage against their fellow-men?
But they who reckon the overthrow of cities and people as the greatest
glory will not endure public tranquillity: they will plunder and rage;
and by the infliction of outrageous injuries will disturb the compact
of human society, that they may have an enemy whom they may destroy
with greater wickedness than that with which they attacked.
Now let us proceed to the remaining subjects. The
conferring of benefits gave the name of gods to Ceres and Liber. I am
able to prove from the sacred writings that wine and corn were used by
men before the offspring of Coelus and Saturnus. But let us suppose
that they were introduced by these. Can it appear to be a greater thing
to have collected corn, and having bruised it, to have taught men to
make bread; or to have pressed grapes gathered from the vine, and to
have made wine, than to have produced and brought forth from the earth
corn itself, or the vine? God, indeed, may have left these things
to be drawn out by the ingenuity of man; yet all things must belong to
Him, who gave to man both wisdom to discover, and those very things
which might be discovered. The arts also are said to have gained
immortality for their inventors, as medicine for AEsculapius, the craft
of the smith for Vulcan. Therefore let us worship those also who taught
the art of the fuller and of the shoemaker. But why is not honour paid
to the discoverer of the potter's art? Is it that those rich men
despise Samian vessels? There are also other arts, the inventors of
which greatly profiled the life of man. Why have not temples been
assigned to them also? But doubtless it is Minerva who discovered all,
and therefore workmen offer prayers to her. Such, then, was the low
condition(2) from which Minerva ascended to heaven. Is there truly any
reason why any one should leave the worship of Him who created(3) the
earth with its living creatures, and the heaven with its stars, for the
adoration of her who taught men to set up the woof? What place does he
hold who taught the healing of wounds in the
32
body? Can he be more excellent than Him who formed the body itself, and
the power of sensibility and of life? Finally, did he contrive
and bring to light the herbs themselves, and the other
things in which the healing art consists?
CHAP. XIX.--THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ONE TO WORSHIP THE TRUE GOD
TOGETHER WITH FALSE DEITIES.
But some one will say that this supreme Being, who
made all things, and those also who conferred on men particular
benefits, are entitled to their respective worship. First of all, it
has never happened that the worshipper of these has also been a
worshipper of God. Nor can this possibly happen. For if the honour paid
to Him is shared by others, He altogether ceases to be worshipped,
since His religion requires us to believe that He is the one and only
God. The excellent poet exclaims, that all those who refined life by
the invention of arts are in the lower regions, and that even the
discoverer himself of such a medicine and art was thrust down by
lightning to the Stygian waves, that we may understand how great is the
power of the Almighty Father, who can extinguish even gods by His
lightnings. But ingenious men perchance thus reasoned with themselves:
Because God cannot be struck with lightning, it is manifest that the
occurrence never took place; nay, rather, because it did take place, it
is manifest that the person in question was a man, and not a god. For
the falsehood of the poets does not consist in the deed, but in the
name. For they feared evil, if, in opposition to the general
persuasion, they should acknowledge that which was true. But if this is
agreed upon among themselves, that gods were made from men, why then do
they not believe the poets, if at any time they describe their
banishments and wounds, their deaths, and wars, and adulteries? From
which things it may be understood that they could not possibly become
gods, since they were not even good men, and during their life they
performed I those actions which bring forth everlasting death.
CHAP.XX.--OF THE GODS PECULIAR TO THE ROMANS, AND THEIR SACRED
RITES.
I now come to the superstitions peculiar to the
Romans, since I have spoken of those which are common. The wolf, the
nurse of Romulus, was invested with divine honours. And I could endure
this, if it had been the animal itself whose figure she
bears. Livy relates that there was an image of Larentina, and
indeed not of her body, but of her mind and character. For
she was the wife of Faustulus, and on account of her prostitution she
was called among the
shepherds wolf,(1) that is, harlot, from which also the brothel(2)
derives its name. The Romans doubtless followed the example of the
Athenians in representing her figure. For when a harlot, by name
Leaena, had put to death a tyrant among them, because it was unlawful
for the image of a harlot to be placed in the temple, they erected the
effigy of the animal whose name she bore. Therefore, as the Athenians
erected a monument from the name, so did the Romans from the profession
of the person thus honoured. A festival was also dedicated to her name,
and the Larentinalia were instituted. Nor is she the only harlot whom
the Romans worship, but also Faula, who was, as Verrius writes, the
paramour of Hericules. Now how great must that immortality be thought
which is attained even by harlots! Flora, having obtained great wealth
by this practice, made the people her heir, and left a fixed sum of
money, from the annual proceeds of which her birthday might be
celebrated by public games, which they called Floralia. And because
this appeared disgraceful to the senate, in order that a kind of
dignity might be given to a shameful matter, they resolved
that an argument should be taken from the name itself. They
pretended that she was the goddess who presides over flowers, and that
she must be appeased, that the crops, together with the trees or vines,
might produce a good and abundant blossom. The poet followed up this
idea in his Fasti, and related that there was a nymph, by no means
obscure, who was called Chloris, and that, on her marriage with
Zephyrus, she received from her husband as a wedding gift the control
over all flowers. These things are spoken with propriety, but to
believe them is unbecoming and shameful. Anti when the truth is in
question, ought disguises of this kind to deceive us? Those games,
therefore, are celebrated with all wantonness, as is suitable to the
memory of a harlot. For besides licentiousness of words, in which all
lewdness is poured forth, women are also stripped of their garments at
the demand of the people, and then perform the office of mimeplayers,
and are detained in the sight of the people with indecent
gestures, even to the satiating of unchaste eyes. Tatius
consecrated an image of Cloacina, which had been found in the great
sewer; and because he did not know whose likeness it was, he gave it a
name from the place. Tullus Hostilius fashioned and worshipped Fear and
Pallor. What shall I say respecting him, but that he was worthy of
having his gods always at hand, as men commonly wish? The conduct of
Marcus Marcellus concerning the consecration of Honour and Valour
differs from this in goodness of the names, but agrees with it in
reality. The senate
33
acted with the same vanity in placing Mind(1) among the gods; for if
they had possessed any intelligence, they would never have undertaken
sacred rites of this kind. Cicero says that Greece undertook a great
and bold design in consecrating the images of Cupids and Loves in the
gymnasia: it is plain that he flattered Atticus and jested with his
friend. For that ought not to have been called a great design, or a
design at all, but the abandoned and deplorable wickedness of unchaste
men, who exposed their children, whom it was their duty to train to an
honourable course, to the lust of youth, and wished them to worship
gods of profligacy, in those places especially where their naked bodies
were exposed to the gaze of their corruptors, and at that age which,
through its simplicity and incautiousness, can be enticed and ensnared
before it can be on its guard. What wonder, if all kinds of profligacy
flowed from this nation, among whom vices themselves have the sanction
of religion, and are so far from being avoided, that they are even
worshipped? And therefore, as though he surpassed the Greeks in
prudence, he subjoined to this sentence as follows: "Vices ought not to
be consecrated, but virtues." But if you admit this, O Marcus Tullius,
you do not see that it will come to pass that vices will break in
together with virtues, because evil things adhere to those which are
good, and have greater influence on the minds of men; and if you forbid
these to be consecrated, the same Greece will answer you that it
worships some gods that it may receive benefits, and others that it may
escape injuries. For this is always the excuse of those who regard
their evils as gods, as the Romans esteem Blight and Fever. If,
therefore, vices are not to be consecrated, in which I agree with you,
neither indeed are virtues. For they have no intelligence or perception
of themselves; nor are they to be placed within walls or shrines made
of clay, but within the breast; and they are to be enclosed within,
lest they should be false if placed without man. Therefore I laugh at
that illustrious law of yours which you set forth in these words: "But
those things on account of which it is given to man to ascend into
heaven--I speak of mind, virtue, piety, faith let there be temples for
their praises." But these things cannot be separated from man. For if
they are to be honoured, they must necessarily be in man himself. But
if they are without man, what need is there to honour those things
which yon do not possess? For it is virtue, which is to be honoured,
and not the image of virtue; and it is to be honoured not by any
sacrifice, or incense, or solemn prayer, but only by the will and
purpose. For what else is it to honour virtue, but to comprehend it
with the mind, and to hold it fast? And as soon as any one begins to
wish for this, he attains it. This is the only honour of virtue; for no
other religion and worship is to be held but that of the one God.
To what purport is it, then, O wisest man, to occupy with
superfluous buildings places which may turn out to the service of
men? To what purport is it to establish priests for the worship of vain
and senseless objects ? To what purport to immolate victims? To what
purport to bestow such great expenditure on the forming or worshipping
of images? The human breast is a stronger and more uncorrupted
temple: let this rather be adorned, let this be filled with the true
deities. For they who thus worship the virtues--that is, who pursue the
shadows and images of virtues--cannot hold the very things which are
true. Therefore there is no virtue in any one when vices bear rule;
there is no faith when each individual carries off all things for
himself; there is no piety when avarice spares neither relatives nor
parents, and passion rushes to poison and the sword: no peace, no
concord, when wars rage in public, and in private enmities
prevail even to bloodshed; no chastity when unbridled lusts contaminate
each sex, and the whole body in every part. Nor, however, do they cease
to worship those things which they flee from and hate. For they worship
with incense and the tips of their fingers those things which they
ought to have shrunk from with their inmost feelings; and this error is
altogether de~ rived from their ignorance of the principal and chief
good.
When their city was occupied by the Gauls, and the
Romans, who were besieged in the Capitol, had made military engines
from the hair of the women, they dedicated a temple to the Bald Venus.
They do not therefore understand how vain are their religions, even
from this very fact, that they jeer at them by these follies. They had
perhaps learned from the Lacedaemonians to invent for themselves gods
from events. For when they were besieging the Messenians, and they (the
Messenians) had gone out secretly, escaping the notice of the
besiegers, and had hastened to plunder Lacedaemon, they were routed and
put to flight by the Spartan women. But the Lacedaemonians, having
learned the stratagem of the enemy, followed. The women in arms went
out to a distance to meet them; and when they saw that their husbands
were preparing themselves for battle, supposing them to be Messenians,
they laid bare their persons. But the men, recognising their wives, and
excited to passion by the sight, rushed to promiscuous intercourse, for
there was not time for discrimination. In like manner, the youths who
had on a
34
former occasion been sent by the same people, having intercourse with
the virgins, from whom the Partheniae were born, in memory of this deed
erected a temple and statue to armed Venus. And although this
originated in a shameful cause, yet it seems better to have consecrated
Venus as armed than bald. At the same time an altar was erected also to
Jupiter Pistor (the baker), because he had admonished them in a dream
to make all the corn which they had into bread, and throw it into the
camp of the enemy; and when this was done, the siege was ended, since
the Gauls despaired of being able to reduce the Romans by want.
What a derision of religions rites is this! I were a
defender of these, what could I complain of so greatly as that the name
of gods had conic into such contempt as to be mocked by the most
disgraceful names? Who would not laugh at the goddess Fornax, or rather
that learned men should be occupied with celebrating the Fornacalia?
Who can refrain from laughter on hearing of the goddess Muta? They say
that she is the goddess from whom the Lares were born, and they call
her Lara, or Larunda. What advantage can she, who is unable to speak,
afford to a worshipper? Caca also is worshipped, who informed Hercules
of the theft of his oxen, having obtained immortality through the
betrayal of her brother; and Cunina, who protects infants in the
cradle, and keeps off witchcraft; and Stercutus, who first introduced
the method of manuring the land; and Tutinus, before whom brides sit,
as an introduction to the marriage rites; and a thousand other
fictions, so that they who regarded these as objects of worship may be
said to be more foolish than the Egyptians, who worship certain
monstrous and ridiculous images. These however, have some delineation
of form. What shall I say of those who worship a rude and shapeless
stone under the name of Terminus? This is he whom Saturnus is said to
have swallowed in the place of Jupiter; nor is the honour paid to him
underservedly. For when Tarquinius wished to build the Capitol, and
there were the chapels of many gods on that spot, he consulted them by
augury whether they would give way to Jupiter; and when the rest gave
way, Terminus alone remained. From which circumstance the pact speaks
of the immoveable stone of the Capitol. Now from this very fact how
great is Jupiter found to be, to whom a stone did not give way, with
this confidence, perhaps, because it had rescued him from the jaws of
his father! Therefore, when the Capitol was built, an aperture was left
in the roof above Terminus himself, that, since he had not given way,
he might enjoy the free heaven; but they did not themselves enjoy
this, who imagined that a stone enjoyed it. And therefore they make
public supplications to him, as to the god who is the guardian of
boundaries; and he is not only a stone, but sometimes also a stock.
What shall I say of those who worship such objects, unless--that they
above all others are stones and stocks?
CHAP. XXI.--OF CERTAIN DEITIES PECULIAR TO BARBARIANS, AND THEIR SACRED
RITES; AND IN LIKE MANNER CONCERNING THE ROMANS.
We have spoken of the gods themselves who are
worshipped; we must now speak a few words respecting their sacrifices
and mysteries. Among the people of Cyprus, Teucer sacrificed a human
victim to Jupiter, and handed down to posterity that sacrifice which
was lately abolished by Hadrian when he was emperor. There was a law
among the people of Tauris, a fierce and inhuman nation, by which it
was ordered that strangers should be sacrificed to Diana; and this
sacrifice was practised through many ages. The Gauls used to appease
Hesus and Teutas with human blood. Nor, indeed, were the Latins free
from this cruelty, since Jupiter Latialis is even now worshipped with
the offering of human blood. What benefit do they who offer such
sacrifices implore from the gods? Or what are such deities able to
bestow on the men by whose punishments they are propitiated? But this
is not so much a matter of surprise with respect to barbarians, whose
religion agrees with their character. But are not our countrymen, who
have always claimed for themselves the glory of gentleness and
civilization, found to be more inhuman by these sacrilegious rites? For
these ought rather to be esteemed impious, who, though they are
embellished with the pursuits of liberal training, turn aside from such
refinement. than those who, being ignorant and inexperienced, glide
into evil practices from their ignorance of those which are good. And
yet it is plain that this rite of immolating human victims is ancient,
since Saturn was honoured in Latium with the same kind of sacrifice;
not indeed that a man was slain at the altar, but that he was thrown
from the Milvian bridge into the Tiber. And Varro relates that this was
done in accordance with an oracle; of which oracle the last verse is to
this effect: "And offer heads to Ades, and to the father a man."(1) And
because this appears ambiguous, both a torch and a man are accustomed
to be thrown to him. But it is said that sacrifices of this kind were
put an end to by Hercules when he returned from Spain; the custom still
continuing, that instead of real men, images made from rushes were cast
forth, as Ovid informs us in his Fasti:(2) "Until the Tirynthian
35
came into these lands, gloomy sacrifices were annually offered in the
Leucadian manner: he threw into the water Romans made of straw; do you,
after the example of Hercules, cast(1) in the images of human bodies."
The Vestal virgins make these sacred offerings, as
the same poet says:(2) "Then also a virgin is accustomed to cast from
the wooden bridge the images of ancient men made from rushes."
For I cannot find language to speak of the infants
who were immolated to the same Saturn, on account of his hatred of
Jupiter. To think that men were so barbarous, so savage, that they gave
the name of sacrifice to the slaughter of their own children, that is,
to a deed foul, and to be held in detestation by the human race; since,
without any regard to parental affection, they destroyed tender and
innocent lives, at an age which is especially pleasing to parents, and
surpassed in brutality the savageness of all beasts, which--savage as
they are--still love their offspring! O incurable madness! What more
could those gods do to them, if they were most angry, than they now do
when propitious, when they defile their worshippers with parricide,
visit them with bereavements, and deprive them of the sensibilities of
men? What can be sacred to these men? Or what will they do in profane
places, who commit the greatest crimes amidst the altars of the gods?
Pescennius Festus relates in the books of his History by a Satire, that
the Carthaginians were accustomed to immolate human victims to Saturn;
and when they were conquered by Agathocles, the king of the Sicilians,
they imagined that the god was angry with them; and therefore, that
they might more diligently offer an expiation, they immolated two
hundred sons of their nobles: "So great the ills to which religion
could prompt, which has ofttimes produced wicked and impious deeds."
What advantage, then, did the men propose by that sacrifice, when they
put to death so large a part of the state, as not even Agathocles had
slain when victorious?
From this kind of sacrifices those public rites are
to be judged signs of no less madness; some of which are in honour of
the mother of the gods, in which men mutilate themselves; others are in
honour of Virtus, whom they also call Bellona, in which the priests
make offsprings not with the blood of another victim, but with their
own.(3) For, cutting their shoulders, and thrusting forth drawn swords
in each hand, they run, they are beside themselves, they are frantic.
Quintilian therefore says excellently in his Fanatic: "If a god compels
this, he does it in anger." Are even these things sacred? Is it not
better to live like cattle, than to worship deities so impious.
profane, and sanguinary? But we will discuss at the proper time the
source from which these errors and deeds of such great disgrace
originated. In the mean time, let us look also to other matters which
are without guilt, that we may not seem to select the worse parts
through the desire of finding fault. In Egypt there are sacred
rites in honour of Isis, since she either lost or found her little
son. For at first her priests, having made their bodies smooth,
beat their breasts, and lament, as the goddess herself had done when
her child was lost. Afterwards the boy is brought forward, as if found,
and that mourning is changed into joy. Therefore Lucan says, "And
Osiris never sufficiently sought for." For they always lose, and they
always find him. Therefore in the sacred rites there is a
representation of a circumstance which really occurred; and which
assuredly declares, if we have any intelligence, that she was a mortal
woman, and almost desolate, had she not found one person. And this did
not escape the notice of the poet himself; for he represents Pompey
when a youth as thus speaking, on hearing the death of his father: "I
will now draw forth the deity Isis from the tomb, and send her through
the nations; and I will scatter through the people Osiris covered with
wood." This Osiris is the same whom the people call Serapis. For it is
customary for the names of the dead who are deified to be changed, that
no one, as I believe, may imagine them to be men. For Romulus after his
death became Quirinus, and Leda became Nemesis, and Circe Marica; and
Ino, when she had leapt into the sea, was called Leucothea; and the
mother Matuta; and her son Melicerta was called Palaemon and Portumnus.
And the sacred rites of the Eleusinian Ceres are not unlike these. For
as in those which have been mentioned the boy Osiris is sought with the
wailing of his mother, so in these Proserpine is carried away to
contract an incestuous marriage with her uncle; and because Ceres is
said to have sought for her in Sicily with torches lighted from the top
of Etna, on this account her sacred rites are celebrated with the
throwing of torches.
At Lampsacus the victim to he offered to Priapus is
an ass, and the cause of the sacrifice of this animal is thus set forth
in the Fasti:-When all the deities had assembled at the festival of the
Great Mother, and when, satiated with feasting. they were spending the
night in sport, they say that Vesta had laid herself on the ground for
rest, and had fallen asleep, and that Priapus upon this formed a design
against her honour as she slept; but that she was aroused by the
unseasonable braying of the ass on which Silenus used to ride, and that
the design of the insidi-
36
ous plotter was frustrated. On this account they say that the people of
Lampsacus were accustomed to sacrifice an ass to Priapus, as though it
were in revenge; but among the Romans the same animal was crowned at
the Vestalia (festival of Vesta) with loaves,(1) in honour of the
preservation of her chastity. What is baser, what more disgraceful,
than if Vesta is indebted to an ass for the preservation of her purity?
But the poet invented a fable. But was that more true which is related
by those(2) who wrote "Phenomena," when they speak concerning the two
stars of Cancer, which the Greeks call asses? That they were asses
which carried across father Liber when he was unable to cross a river,
and that he rewarded one of them with the power of speaking with human
voice; and that a contest arose between him and Priapus; and Priapus,
being worsted in the contest, was enraged, and slew the victor. This
truly is ranch more absurd. But poets have the licence of saying what
they will. I do not meddle with a mystery so odious; nor do
I strip Priapus of his disguise, lest something deserving of
ridicule should be brought to light. It is true the poets
invented these fictions, but they must have been invented for the
purpose of concealing some greater depravity. Let us inquire what this
is. But in fact it is evident. For as the bull is sacrificed to
Luna,(3) because he also has horns as she has; and as "Persia
propitiates with a horse Hyperion surrounded with rays, that a slow
victim may not be offered to the swift god;" so in this case no more
suitable victim could be found than that which resembled him to whom it
is offered.
At Lindus, which is a town of Rhodes, there are
sacred rites in honour of Hercules, the observance of which differs
widely from all other rites; for they are not celebrated with words of
good omen(4) (as the Greeks term it), but with revilings and cursing.
And they consider it a violation of the sacred rites, if at any tithe
during the celebration of the solemnities a good word shall have
escaped from any one even inadvertently. And this is the reason
assigned for this practice, if indeed there can be any reason in
things utterly senseless. When Hercules had arrived at the place, and
was suffering hunger, he saw a ploughman at work, and began to ask him
to sell one of his oxen. But the ploughman replied that this was
impossible, because his hope of cultivating the land depended
altogether upon those two bullocks. Hercules, with his usual violence,
because he was not able to receive one of them, killed both. But the
unhappy man, when he saw that his oxen were slain, avenged the injury
with revilings,--a circumstance which afforded gratification to the man
of elegance and refinement. For while he prepares a feast for his
companions, and while he devours the oxen of another man, he receives
with ridicule and loud laughter the bitter reproaches with which the
other assails him. But when it had been determined that divine honours
should be paid to Hercules in admiration of his excellence, an altar
was erected in his honour by the citizens, which he named, from the
circumstance, the yoke of oxen;(5) and at this altar two yoked oxen
were sacrificed, like those which he had taken from the ploughman. And
he appointed the same man to be his priest, and directed him always to
use the same revilings in offering sacrifice, because he said that he
had never feasted more pleasantly. Now these things are not sacred, but
sacrilegious, in which that is said to be enjoined, which, if it is
done in other things, is punished with the greatest severity. What,
moreover, do the rites of the Cretan Jupiter himself show, except the
manner in which he was withdrawn from his father, or brought up? There
is
a goat belonging to the nymph Amalthea, which gave suck to the infant;
and of this goat Germanicus Caesar thus speaks, in his poem translated
from Aratus: 6--
"She is supposed to be the nurse of Jupiter; if in truth the infant
jupiter pressed the faithful teats of the Cretan
goat, whichattests the gratitude of her lord by a bright constellation."
Musaeus relates that Jupiter, when fighting
against the Titans, used the hide of this goat as a shield, from which
circumstance he is called by the poets shield-bearer.(7) Thus, whatever
was done in concealing the boy, that also is done by way of
representation in the sacred rites. Moreover, the mystery of his mother
also contains the same story which Ovid sets forth in the Fasti:--
"Now the lofty Ida resounds with tinklings, that the boy may cry in
safety with infant mouth. Some strike their shields
with stakes,some beat their empty helmets. This is the employment of
theCuretes, this of the Corybantes. The matter was concealed,
andimitations of the ancient deed remain; the attendant goddessesshake
instruments of brass, and hoarse hides. Instead of helmetsthey strike
cymbals, and drums instead of shields; the flutegives Phrygian strains,
as it gave before."
Sallust rejected this opinion altogether, as though
invented by the poets, and wished to give an ingenious explanation of
the reasons for
37
which the Curetes are said to have nourished Jupiter; and he speaks to
this purport: Because they were the first to understand the worship of
the deity, that therefore antiquity, which exaggerates all things, made
them known as the nourishers of Jupiter. How much this learned man was
mistaken, the matter itself at once declares. For if Jupiter holds the
first place, both among the gods and in religious rites, if no gods
were worshipped by the people before him, because they who are
worshipped were not yet born; it appears that the Curetes, on the
contrary, were the first who did not understand the worship of
the deity, since all error was introduced by them, and the memory of
the true God was taken away. They ought therefore to have understood
from the mysteries and ceremonies themselves, that they were offering
prayers to dead men. I do not then require that any one should believe
the fictions of the poets. If any one imagines that these speak
falsely, let him consider the writings of the pontiffs themselves, and
weigh whatever there is of literature pertaining to sacred rites: he
will perhaps find more things than we bring forward, from which he may
understand that all things which are esteemed sacred are empty, vain,
and fictitious. But if any one, having discovered wisdom, shall lay
aside his error, he will assuredly laugh at the follies of men
who are almost without understanding: I mean those who either dance
with unbecoming gestures, or run naked, anointed, and crowned with
chaplets, either wearing a mask or besmeared with mud. What shall I say
about shields now putrid with age? When they carry these, they think
that they are carrying gods themselves on their shoulders. For Furius
Bibaculus is regarded among the chief examples of piety, who, though he
was praetor, nevertheless carried the sacred shield,(1) preceded by the
lictors, though his office as proetor gave him an exemption from this
duty. He was therefore not Furius, but altogether mad,(2) who thought
that he graced his praetorship by this service. Deservedly then, since
these things are done by men not unskilful and ignorant, does Lucretius
exclaim :--
"O foolish minds of men! O blinded breasts! In what darkness of life
andin how great dangers is passed this term of life, whatever be
itsduration!"
Who that is possessed of any sense would not laugh
at these mockeries, when he sees that men, as though bereft of
intelligence, do those things seriously, which if any one should do in
sport, he would appear too full of sport and folly?
CHAP. XXII.--WHO WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE VANITIES BEFORE DESCRIBED IN
ITALY AMONG THE ROMANS, AND WHO AMONG OTHER NATIONS.
The author and establisher of these vanities among
the Romans was that Sabine king who especially engaged(3) the rude and
ignorant minds of men with new superstitions: and that he might do this
with some authority, he pretended that he had meetings by night with
the goddess Egeria. There was a very dark cavern in the grove of
Aricia, from which flowed a stream with a never failing spring. Hither
he was accustomed to withdraw himself without any witnesses, that he
might be able to pretend that, by the admonition of the goddess
his wife, he delivered to the people those sacred rites which were most
acceptable to the gods. It is evident that he wished to imitate the
craftiness of Minos, who concealed himself in the cave of Jupiter, and,
after a long delay there, brought forward laws, as though
delivered to him by Jupiter, that he might bind men to obedience not
only by the authority of his government, but also by the sanction of
religion. Nor was it difficult to persuade shepherds. Therefore he
instituted pontiffs, priests, Salii, and augurs; he arranged the gods
in families; and by these means he softened the fierce spirits of
the new people and called them away from warlike affairs to
the pursuit of peace. But though he deceived others, he did not
deceive himself. For after many years, in the consulship of Cornelius
and Bebius, in a field belonging to the scribe Petilius, under the
Janiculum, two stone chests were found by men who were digging, in one
of which was the body of Numa, in the other seven books in latin
respecting the law of the pontiffs, and the same number written in
Greek respecting systems of philosophy, in which he not only annulled
the religious rites which he himself had instituted, but all others
also. When this was referred to the senate, it was decreed that these
books should be destroyed. Therefore Quintus Petilius, the praetor who
had jurisdiction in the
city burnt them in an assembly of the people. This was a
senseless proceeding; for of what advantage was it that the books
were burnt, s when the cause on account of which they were burnt--that
they took away the authority due to religion--was itself handed
down to memory? Every one then in the senate was most foolish; for the
books might have been burnt, and yet the matter itself have been
unknown. Thus, while they wish to prove even to posterity with what
piety they defended religious institutions, they lessened the authority
of the institutions themselves by their testimony.
But as Pompilius was the institutor of foolish
38
superstitions among the Romans, so also, before Pompilius, Faunus
was in Latium, who both established impious rites to his grandfather
Saturnus, and honoured his father Picus with a place among the gods,
and consecrated his sister Fatua Fauna, who was also his wife; who, as
Gabius Bassus relates, was called Fatua because she had been in the
habit of foretelling their fates to women, as Faunus did to men. And
Varro writes that she was a woman of such great modesty, that, as long
as she lived, no male except her husband saw her or heard her name. On
this account women sacrifice to her in secret, and call her the Good
Goddess. And Sextus Claudius, in that book which he wrote in Greek,
relates that it was the wife of Faunus who, because, contrary to the
practice and honour of kings, she had drunk a jar of wine, and had
become intoxicated, was beaten to death by her husband with myrtle
rods. But afterwards, when he was sorry for what he had done, and was
unable to endure his regret for her, he paid her divine honours. For
this reason they say that a covered jar of wine is placed at her sacred
rites. Therefore Faunus also left to posterity no slight error, which
all that are intelligent see through. For Lucilius in these verses
derides the folly of those who imagine that images are gods: "The
terrestrial(1) Lamiae, which Faunus and Numa Pompilius and others
instituted; at and these he trembles, he places everything in this. As
infant boys believe that every statue of bronze is a living man, so
these imagine that all things reigned are true: they believe that
statues of bronze contain a heart. It is a painter's gallery;(2) there
is nothing true; all things are fictitious." The poet, indeed,
compares foolish men to infants. But I say that they are much more
senseless than infants. For they (infants) suppose that images are men,
whereas these take them for gods: the one through their age, the others
through folly, imagine that which is not true: at any rate, the one
soon ceased to be deceived; the foolishness of the others is permanent,
and always increases. Orpheus was the first who introduced the rites of
father Liber into Greece; and he first celebrated them on a mountain of
Boeotia, very near to Thebes, where Liber was born; and because this
mountain continually resounded with the strains of the lyre, it
was called Cithaeron.(3) Those sacred rites are even now called Orphic,
in which he himself was lacerated and torn in pieces; and he lived
about the same time with Faunus. But which of them was prior in age
admits of doubt, since Latinus and Priam reigned during the same years,
as did also their fathers Faunus and Laomedon, in whose reign Orpheus
came with the Argonauts to the coast of the Trojans.
Let us therefore advance further, and inquire who
was really the first author of the worship of the gods. Didymus,(4) in
the books of his commentary on Pindar, says that Melisseus, king of the
Cretans, was the first who sacrificed to the gods, and introduced new
rites and parades of sacrifices. He had two daughters, Amalthaea and
Melissa, who nourished the youth fill Jupiter with goats' milk and
honey. Hence that poetic fable derived its origin, that bees flew to
the child, and filled his mouth with honey. Moreover, he says that
Melissa was appointed by her father the first priestess of the Great
Mother; from which circumstance the priests of the same Mother are
still called Melissae. But the sacred history testifies that Jupiter
himself, when he had gained possession of power, arrived at such
insolence that he built temples in honour of himself in many places.
For when he went about to different lands, on his arrival in each
region, he united to himself the kings or princes of the people in
hospitality and friendship; and when he was departing from each, he
ordered that a shrine should be dedicated to himself in the name of his
host, as though the remembrance of their friendship and league could
thus be preserved. Thus temples were founded in honour of Jupiter
Atabyrius and Jupiter Labrandius; for Atabyrius and Labrandius were his
entertainers and assistants in war. Temples were also built to Jupiter
Laprius, to Jupiter Molion, to Jupiter Casius, and others, after the
same manner. This was a very crafty device on his part, that he might
both acquire divine honour for himself, and a perpetual name for his
entertainers in conjunction with religious observances. Accordingly
they were glad, and cheerfully submitted to his command, and observed
annual rites and festivals for the sake of handing down their own name.
AEneas did something like this in Sicily, when he gave the name of his
host(5) Acestes to a city which he had built, that Acestes might
afterwards joyfully and willingly love, increase, and adorn it. In this
manner Jupiter spread abroad through the world the observance of his
worship, and gave an example for the imitation of others. Whether,
then, the practice of worshipping the gods proceeded from Melisseus, as
Didymus related, or from Jupiter also himself, as Euhemerus says, the
39
time is still agreed upon when the gods began to be worshipped.
Melisseus, indeed, was much prior in time, inasmuch as he brought up
Jupiter his grandson. It is therefore possible that either before, or
while Jupiter was yet a boy, he taught the worship of the gods, namely,
the mother of his foster-child, and his grandmother Tellus, who was the
wife of Uranus, and his father Saturnus; and he himself, by this
example and institution, may have exalted Jupiter to such pride, that
he afterwards ventured to assume divine honours to himself.
CHAP. XXIII.--OF THE AGES OF VAIN SUPERSTITIONS, AND THE TIMES AT WHICH
THEY COMMENCED.
Now, since we have ascertained the origin of vain
superstitions, it remains that we should also collect the times during
which they whose memory is honoured lived. Theophilus,(1) in his book
written to Autolycus respecting the times,(2) says that Thallus relates
in his history, that Belus, who is worshipped by the Babylonians and
Assyrians, is found to have lived 322 years before the Trojan war; that
Belus, moreover, was contemporary with Saturnus, and that they both
grew up at one time;-- which is so true, that it may be inferred by
reason itself. For Agamemnon, who carried on the Trojan war, was the
fourth(3) in descent from Jupiter; and Achilles and Ajax were of the
third(4) descent from him; and Ulysses was related in the same degree.
Priam, indeed, was distant by a long series of descents. But according
to some authorities, Dardanus and Iasius were sons of Coritus, not of
Jupiter. For if it had been so, Jupiter could not have formed that
unchaste connection with Ganymede, his own descendant. Therefore, if
you divide the years which are in agreement, the number will be found
in harmony with the parents of those whom I have named above. Now, from
the destruction of the Trojan city fourteen hundred and seventy years
are made up. From this calculation of times, it is manifest that
Saturnus has not been born more than eighteen hundred years, and he
also was the father of all the gods. Let them not glory, then, in the
antiquity of their sacred rites, since both their origin and system and
times have been ascertained. There still remain some things which may
be of great weight for the disproving of false religions; but I have
determined now to bring this book to an end, that it may not exceed
moderate limits. For those things must be followed up more fully, that,
having refuted all things which seem to oppose the truth, we may be
able to instruct in true religion men who, through ignorance of good
things, wander in uncertainty. But the first step towards wisdom is to
understand what is false; the second, to ascertain what is true.
Therefore he who shall have profited by this first discussion of mine,
in which we have exposed false things, will be excited to the knowledge
of the truth, than which no pleasure is more gratifying to man; and he
will now be worthy of the wisdom of heavenly training, who shall
approach with willingness and preparation to the knowledge of the other
subjects.
40
THE DIVINE INSTITUTES
BOOK II.
OF THE ORIGIN OF ERROR.
CHAP. I--THAT FORGETFULNESS OF REASON MAKES MEN IGNORANT OF THE TRUE
GOD, WHOM THEY WORSHIP IN ADVERSITY AND DESPISE IN PROSPERITY.
ALTHOUGH I have shown in the first book that the
religious ceremonies of the gods are false, because those in whose
honour the general consent of men throughout the world by a foolish
persuasion undertook various and dissimilar rites were mortals, and
when they had completed their term of life, yielded to a divinely
appointed necessity and died, yet, lest any doubt should be left, this
second book shall lay open the very fountain of errors, and shall
explain all the causes by which men were deceived, so that at first
they believed that they were gods, and afterwards with an inveterate
persuasion persevered in the religious observances which they had most
perversely undertaken. For I desire, O Emperor Constantine, now that I
have proved the emptiness of these things, and brought to light the
impious vanity of men, to assert the majesty of the one God,
undertaking the more useful and greater duty of recalling men from
crooked paths, and of bringing them back into favour with themselves,
that they may not, as some philosophers do, so greatly despise
themselves, nor think that they are weak and useless, and of no
account, and altogether born in vain. For this notion drives many to
vicious pursuits. For while they imagine that we are a care to no God,
or that we are about to have no existence after death, they altogether
give themselves to the indulgence of their passions; and while they
think that it is allowed them, they eagerly apply themselves to the
enjoyment of pleasures, by which they unconsciously run into the snares
of death; for they are ignorant as to what is reasonable conduct on the
part of man: for if they wished to understand this, in the first place
they would acknowledge their Lord, and would follow after virtue and
justice; they would not subject their souls to the influence of
earth-born fictions, nor would they seek the deadly fascinations of
their lusts; in short, they would value themselves highly, and would
understand that there is more in man than appears; and that they cannot
retain their power and standing unless men lay aside depravity, and
undertake the worship of their true Parent. I indeed, as I ought, often
reflecting on the sum of affairs, am accustomed to wonder that the
majesty of the one God, which keeps together and rules all things, has
come to be so forgotten, that the only befitting object of worship is,
above all others, the one which is especially neglected; and that men
have sunk to such blindness, that they prefer the dead to the true and
living God, and those who are of the earth, and buried in the earth, to
Him who was the Creator of the earth itself.
And yet this impiety of men might meet with some
indulgence if the error entirely arose from ignorance of the divine
name. But since we often see that the worshippers of other gods
themselves confess and acknowledge the Supreme God, what pardon can
they hope for their impiety, who do not acknowledge the worship of Him
whom man cannot altogether be ignorant of? For both in swearing, and in
expressing a wish, and in giving thanks, they do not name Jupiter, or a
number of gods, but God;(1) so entirely does the truth of its own
accord break forth by the force of nature even from unwilling breasts.
And this, indeed, is not the case with men in their prosperity. For
then most of all does God escape the memory of men, when in the
enjoyment of His benefits they ought to honour His divine beneficence.
But if any weighty necessity shall press them, then they remember God.
If the terror of war shall have resounded, if the pestilential force of
diseases shall have overhung them, if long-continued drought shall have
denied nourishment to the
41
crops, if a violent tempest or hail shall have assailed them, they
betake themselves to God, aid is implored from God, God is entreated to
suc-cour them. If any one is tossed about on the sea, the wind being
furious, it is this God whom he invokes. If any one is harassed by any
violence, he implores His aid. If any one, reduced to the last
extremity of poverty, begs for food, he appeals to God alone, and by
His divine and matchless name(1) alone he seeks to gain the compassion
of men. Thus they never remember God, unless it be while they are in
trouble. When fear has left them, and the dangers have withdrawn, then
in truth they quickly hasten to the temples of the gods: they pour
libations to them, they sacrifice to them, they crown(2) them with
garlands. But to God, whom they called upon in their necessity itself,
they do not give thanks even in word. Thus from prosperity arises
luxury; and from luxury, together with all other vices, there arises
impiety towards God.
From what cause can we suppose this to arise? Unless
we imagine that there is some perverse power which is always hostile to
the truth, which rejoices in the errors of men, whose one and only task
it is perpetually to scatter darkness, and to blind the minds of men,
lest they should see the light,--lest, in short, they should look to
heaven, and observe the nature(3) of their own body, the origin(4) of
which we shall relate at the proper place; but now let us refute
fallacies. For since other animals look down to the ground, with bodies
bending forward, because they have not received reason and wisdom,
whereas an upright position and an elevated countenance have been given
to us by the Creator God, it is evident that these ceremonies paid to
the gods are not in accordance with the reason of man, because they
bend down the heaven-sprung being to the worship of earthly objects.
For that one and only Parent of ours, when He created man,--that is, an
animal intelligent and capable of exercising reason,--raised him from
the ground, and elevated him to the contemplation of his Creator. As an
ingenious poet s has well represented it:--
"And when other animals bend forward and look to the earth, He gave to
man an elevated countenance, and commanded him to
look up to theheaven, and to raise his countenance erect to stars."
From this circumstance the Greeks plainly derived
the name <greek>anqrwpos</greek>,(6) because he looks
upward. They therefore deny themselves, and renounce the name of man,
who do not look up, but downward: unless they think that the fact of
our being upright is assigned to man without any cause. God willed that
we should look up to heaven, and undoubtedly not without reason. For
both the birds and almost all of the dumb creation see the heaven, but
it is given to us in a peculiar manner to behold the heaven as we stand
erect, that we may seek religion there; that since we cannot see God
with our eyes, we may with our mind contemplate Him, whose throne is
there: and this cannot assuredly be done by him who worships brass and
stone, which are earthly things. But it is most incorrect that the
nature of the body, which is temporary, should be upright, but that the
soul itself, which is eternal, should be abject; whereas the figure and
position have no other signification, except that the mind of man ought
to look in the same direction as his countenance, and that his soul
ought to be as upright as his body, so that it may imitate that which
it ought to rule. But men, forgetful both of their name and nature,
cast down their eyes from the heaven, and fix them upon the ground, and
fear the works of their own hands, as though anything could be greater
than its own artificer.
CHAP. II.--WHAT WAS THE FIRST CAUSE OF MAKING IMAGES; OF THE TRUE
LIKENESS OF GOD, AND THE TRUE WORSHIP OF HIM.
What madness is it, then, either to form those
objects which they themselves may afterwards fear, or to fear the
things which they have formed? But, they say, we do not fear the images
themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and
to whose names they are dedicated. You fear them doubtless on this
account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are
gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise
your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the
open air? Why do you look to walls, and wood, and stone, rather than to
the place where you believe them to be? What is the meaning of
temples(7) and altars? what, in short, of the images themselves, which
are memorials either of the dead or absent? For the plan of making
likenesses was invented by men for this reason, that it might be
possible to retain the memory of those who had either been removed by
death or separated by absence.
42
In which of these classes, then, shall we reckon the gods? If among the
dead, who is so foolish as to worship them? If among the absent, then
they are not to be worshipped, if they neither see our actions nor hear
our prayers. But if the gods cannot be absent,--for, since they are
divine, they see and hear all things, in whatever part of the universe
they are,--it follows that images are superfluous, since the gods are
present everywhere, and it is sufficient to invoke with prayer the
names of those who hear us. But if they are present, they cannot fail
to be at hand at their own images. It is entirely so, as the people
imagine, that the spirits of the dead wander(1) about the tombs and
relics of their bodies. But after that the deity has begun to be near,
there is no longer need of his statue.
For I ask, if any one should often contemplate the
likeness of a man who has settled in a foreign land, that he may thus
solace himself for him who is absent, would he also appear to be of
sound mind, if, when the other had returned and was present, he should
persevere in contemplating the likeness, and should prefer the
enjoyment of it, rather than the sight of the man himself? Assuredly
not. For the likeness of a man appears to be necessary at that time
when he is far away; and it will become superfluous when he is at hand.
But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused
everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is
always superfluous. But they fear lest their religion should be
altogether vain and empty if they should see nothing present which they
may adore, and therefore they set up images; and since these are
representations of the dead, they resemble the dead, for they are
entirely destitute of perception. But the image of the ever-living God
ought to be living and endued with perception. But if it received this
name(2) from resemblance, how can it be supposed that these images
resemble God, which have neither perception nor motion? Therefore the
image of God is not that which is fashioned by the fingers of men out
of stone, or bronze, or other material, but man himself, since he has
both perception and motion, and performs many and great actions. Nor do
the foolish men understand, that if images could exercise perception
and motion, they would of their own accord adore men, by whom they have
been adorned and embellished, since they would be either rough and
unpolished stone, or rude and unshapen wood,(3) had they not been
fashioned by man.
Man, therefore, is to be regarded as the parent of
these images; for they were produced by his instrumentality, and
through him they first had shape, figure, and beauty. Therefore he who
made them is superior to the objects which were made. And yet no one
looks up to the Maker Himself, or reverences Him: he fears the things
which he has made, as though there could be more power in the work than
in the workman. Seneca, therefore, rightly says in his moral treatises:
They worship the images of the gods, they supplicate them with bended
knee, they adore them, they sit or stand beside them through the whole
day, they offer to them contributions,(4) they slay victims; and while
they value these images so highly, they despise the artificers who made
them. What is so inconsistent, as to despise the statuary and to adore
the statue; and not even to admit to your society him who makes your
gods? What force, what power can they have, when he who made them has
none? But he was unable to give to these even those powers which he
had, the power of sight, of hearing, of speech, and of motion. Is any
one so foolish as to suppose that there is anything in the image of a
god, in which there is nothing even of a man except the mere
resemblance? But no one considers these things; for men are imbued with
this persuasion, and their minds have thoroughly imbibed the deception
s of folly. And thus beings endowed with sense adore objects which are
senseless, rational beings adore irrational objects, those who are
alive adore inanimate objects, those sprung from heaven adore earthly
objects. It delights me, therefore, as though standing on a lofty
watch-tower, from which all may hear, to proclaim aloud that saying of
Persius:(6)--
"O souls bent down to the earth, and destitute of heavenly
things?"
Rather look to the heaven, to the sight of which God
your Creator raised you. He gave to you an elevated countenance; you
bend it down to the earth; you depress to things below those lofty
minds, which are raised together with their bodies to their parent, as
though it repented you that you were not born quadrupeds. It is not
befitting that the heavenly being should make himself equal to things
which are earthly, and incline to the earth. Why do you deprive
yourselves of heavenly benefits, and of your own accord fall prostrate
upon the ground? For you do wretchedly roll yourselves(7) on the ground,
43
when you seek here below that which you ought to have sought above. For
as to those vain(1) and fragile productions, the work of man's hands,
from whatever kind of material they are formed, what are they but
earth, out of which they were produced? Why, then, do you subject
yourselves to lower objects? why do you place the earth above your
heads? For when you lower yourselves to the earth, and humiliate
yourselves, you sink of your own accord to hell, and condemn yourselves
to death; for nothing is lower and more humble than the earth, except
death and hell. And if you wished to escape these, you would despise
the earth lying beneath your feet, preserving the position of your
body, which you received upright, in order that you might be able to
direct your eyes and your mind to Him who made it. But to despise and
trample upon the earth is nothing else than to refrain from adoring
images, because they are made of earth; also not to desire riches, and
to despise the pleasures of the body, because wealth, and the body
itself, which we make use of as a lodging, is but earth. Worship a
living being, that you may live; for he must necessarily die who has
subjected(2) himself and his soul to the dead.
CHAP. III.--THAT CICERO AND OTHER MEN OF LEARNING ERRED IN NOT TURNING
AWAY THE PEOPLE FROM ERROR.
But what does it avail thus to address the vulgar
and ignorant, when we see that learned and prudent men, though they
understand the vanity of these ceremonies, nevertheless through some
perverseness persist in the worship of those very objects which they
condemn? Cicero was well aware that the deities which men worshipped
were false. For when he had spoken many things which tended to the
overthrow of religious ceremonies, he said nevertheless that these
matters ought not to be discussed by the vulgar, lest such discussion
should extinguish the system of religion which was publicly
received. What can you do respecting him, who, when he perceives
himself to be in error, of his own accord dashes himself against the
stones, that all the people may stumble? or tears out his own eyes,
that all may be blind? who neither deserves well of others, whom he
suffers to be in error, nor of himself, since he inclines to the errors
of others, and makes no use of the benefit of his own wisdom, so as to
carry out(3) in action the conception of his own mind, but knowingly
and consciously thrusts his foot into the snare, that he also may be
taken with the rest, whom he ought, as the more prudent, to have
extricated? Nay rather, if you have any virtue, Cicero, endeavour to
make the people wise: that is a befitting subject, on which you may
expend all the powers of your eloquence. For there is no fear lest
speech should fail you in so good a cause, when you have often defended
even bad ones with copious-ness and spirit. But truly you fear the
prison of Socrates,(4) and on that account you do not venture to
undertake the advocacy of truth. But, as a wise man, you ought to have
despised death. And, indeed, it would have been much more glorious to
die on account of good words than on account of revilings. Nor would
the renown of your Philippics have been more advantageous to you than
the dispersion of the errors of mankind, and the recalling of the minds
of men to a healthy state by your disputation.
But let us make allowance for timidity, which ought
not to exist in a wise man. Why, then, are you yourself engaged in the
same error? I see that you worship things of earth made by the hand:
you understand that they are vain, and yet you do the same things which
they do, whom you confess to be most foolish. What, therefore, did it
profit you, that you saw the truth, which you were neither about to
defend nor to follow? If even they who perceive themselves to be in
error err willingly, how much more so do the unlearned vulgar, who
delight in empty processions, and gaze at all things with boyish minds!
They are delighted with trifling things, and are captivated with the
form of images; and they are unable to weigh every object in their own
minds, so as to understand that nothing which is beheld by the eyes of
mortals ought to be worshipped, because it must necessarily be mortal.
Nor is it matter of surprise if they do I not see God, when they
themselves do not even see man, whom they believe that they see. For
this, which falls under the notice of the eyes,(5) is not man, but the
receptacle of man, the quality and figure of which are not seen from
the lineaments of the vessel which contains them, but from the actions
and character. They, therefore, who worship images are mere bodies
without men, because they have given themselves to corporeal things,
and do not see anything with the mind more than with the body; whereas
it is the office of the soul to perceive those things more clearly
which the eye of the body cannot behold. And that philosopher and poet
severely accuses those men as humble and abject, who, in opposition to
the design of their nature, prostrate them-
44
selves to the worship of earthly things; for he says:(1)--
"And they abase their souls with fear of the gods, and weigh and press
them down to earth."
When he said these things, indeed, his meaning was different--that
nothing was to be worshipped, because the gods do not regard the
affairs of men.
In another place, at length, he acknowledges that
the ceremonies and worship of the gods is an unavailing office:(2)--
"Nor is it any piety to be often seen with veiled head to turn to a
stone, and approach every altar, and fall prostrate
on the ground, andspread the hands before the shrines of the gods, and
sprinkle thealtars with much blood of beasts, and to offer vow after
vow."
And assuredly if these things are useless, it is not right that sublime
and lofty souls should be called away and depressed to the earth, but
that they should think only of heavenly things.
False religious systems, therefore, have been
attacked by more sagacious men, because they perceived their falsehood;
but the true religion was not introduced, because they knew not what
and where it was. They therefore so regarded it as though it had no
existence, because they were unable to find it in its truth. And in
this manner they fell into a much greater error than they who held a
religion which was false. For those worshippers of fragile images,
however foolish they may be, inasmuch as they place heavenly things in
things which are earthly and corruptible, yet retain something of
wisdom, and may be pardoned, because they hold the chief duty of man,
if not in reality, yet still in their purpose; since, if not the only,
yet certainly the greatest difference between men and the beasts
consists in religion. But this latter class, in proportion to their
superior wisdom, in that they understood the error of false religion,
rendered themselves so much the more foolish, because they did not
imagine that some religion was true. And thus, because it is easier to
judge of the affairs of others than of their own, while they see the
downfall of others, they have not observed what was before their own
feet. On either side is found the greatest folly, and a certain
trace(3) of wisdom; so that you may doubt which are rather to be called
more foolish--those who embrace a false religion, or those who embrace
none. But (as I have said) pardon may be granted to those who are
ignorant and do not own themselves to be wise; but it cannot be
extended to those who, while they profess(4) wisdom, rather exhibit
folly. I am not, indeed, so unjust as to imagine that they could
divine, so that they might find out the truth by themselves; for I
acknowledge that this is impossible. But I require from them that which
they were able to perform by reason(5) itself. For they would act more
prudently, if they both understood that some form of religion is true,
and if, while they attacked false religions, they openly proclaimed
that men were not in possession of that which is true.
But this consideration may perhaps have influenced
them, that if there were any true religion, it would exert itself and
assert its authority, and not permit the existence of anything opposed
to it. For they were unable to see at all, on what account, or by whom,
and in what manner true religion was depressed, which partakes of a
divine mystery(6) and a heavenly secret. And no man can know(7) this by
any means, unless he is taught. The sum of the matter is this: The
unlearned and the foolish esteem false religions as true, because they
neither know the true nor understand the false.(8) But the more
sagacious, because they are ignorant of the true, either persist in
those religions which they know to be false, that they may appear to
possess something; or worship nothing at all, that they may not fall
into error, whereas this very thing partakes largely of error, under
the figure of a man to imitate the life of cattle. To understand that
which is false is truly the part of wisdom, but of human wisdom. Beyond
this step man cannot proceed, and thus many of the philosophers have
taken away religious institutions, as I have pointed out; but to know
the truth is the part of divine wisdom. But man by himself cannot
attain to this knowledge, unless he is taught by God. Thus philosophers
have reached the height of human wisdom, so as to understand that which
is not; but they have failed in attaining the power of saying that
which really is. It is a well-known saying of Cicero:(9) "I wish that I
could as easily find out the truth as I can refute false things." And
because this is beyond the power of man's condition, the capability of
this office is assigned to us, to whom God has delivered the knowledge
of the truth; to the explaining of which the four last books shall be
devoted. Now, in the meantime, let us bring to light false things, as
we have begun to do.
CHAP. IV.--OF IMAGES, AND THE ORNAMENTS OF TEMPLES, AND THE CONTEMPT IN
WHICH THEY ARE HELD EVEN BY THE HEATHENS THEMSELVES.
What majesty, then, can images have, which were
altogether in the power of puny man, either
445
that they should be formed into something else, or that they should not
be made at all? On which account Priapus thus speaks in Horace:(1)
"Formerly I was the trunk of a fig-tree,(2) a useless log, when
thecarpenter, at a loss whether he should make a bench or a
Priapus,decided that it should be a god. Accordingly I am a god, a very
greatterror to thieves and birds."
Who would not be at ease with such a guardian as this? For thieves are
so foolish as to fear the figure of Priapus; though the very birds,
which they imagine to be driven away by fear of his scythe, settle upon
the images which are skilfully made, that is, which altogether resemble
men, build their nests there, and defile them. But Flaccus, as a writer
of satire, ridiculed the folly of men. But they who make the images
fancy that they are performing a serious business. In short, that very
great poet, a man of sagacity in other things, in this alone displayed
folly, not like a poet, but after the manner of an old woman, when even
in those most highly-finished(3) books he orders this to be done:--
"And let the guardianship of Priapus of the Hellespont,(4) who drives
away thieves and birds with his willow scythe,
preserve them."
Therefore they adore mortal things, as made by mortals. For they may be
broken, or burnt, or be destroyed. For they are often apt to be broken
to pieces, when houses fall through age, and when, consumed by
conflagration, they waste away to ashes; and in many instances, unless
aided by their own magnitude, or protected by diligent watchfulness,
they become the prey of thieves. What madness is it, then, to fear
those objects for which either the downfall of a building, or fires, or
thefts, may be feared! What folly, to hope for protection from those
things which are unable to protect themselves! What perversity, to have
recourse to the guardianship of those which, when injured, are
themselves unavenged, unless vengeance is exacted by their worshippers!
Where, then, is truth? Where no violence can be applied to religion;
where there appears to be nothing which can be injured; where no
sacrilege can be committed.
But whatever is subjected to the eyes and to the
hands, that, in truth, because it is perishable, is inconsistent with
the whole subject of immortality. It is in vain, therefore, that men
set off and adorn their gods with gold, ivory, and jewels, as though
they were capable of deriving any pleasure from these things. What is
the use of precious gifts to insensible objects? Is it the same
which the dead have? For as they embalm the bodies of the dead, wrap
them in spices and precious garments, and bury them in the earth,
so they honour the gods, who when they were made did not perceive it,
and when they are worshipped have no knowledge of it; for they did not
receive sensibility on their consecration. Persius was displeased that
golden vessels should be carried into the temples, since he thought it
superfluous that that should be reckoned among religious offerings
which was not an instrument of sanctity, but of avarice. For these are
the things which it is better to offer as a gift to the god whom you
would rightly worship:--
"Written law(5) and the divine law of the conscience, and the
sacredrecesses of the mind, and the breast imbued with nobleness."(6)
A noble and wise sentiment. But he ridiculously added this: that
there is this gold in the temples, as there are doll(7) presented to
Venus by the virgin; which perhaps he may have despised on
account of their smallness. For he did not see that the very images and
statues of the gods, wrought in gold and ivory by the hand of
Polycletus, Euphranor, and Phidias, were nothing more than large dolls,
not dedicated by virgins, to whose sports some indulgence may be
granted, but by bearded men. Therefore Seneca deservedly laughs at the
folly even of old men. We are not (he says) boys twice,(8) as is
commonly said, but are always so. But there is this difference, that
when men we have greater subjects of sport. Therefore men offer to
these dolls, which are of large size, and adorned as though for the
stage, both perfumes, and incense, and odours: they sacrifice to these
costly and fattened victims, which have a mouth,(9) but one that is not
suitable for eating; to these they bring robes and costly garments,
though they have no need of clothing; to these they dedicate gold and
silver, of which they who receive them are as destitute(10) as they who
have given them.
And not without reason did Dionysius, the despot of
Sicily, when after a victory he had become master of Greece,(11)
despise, and plunder and jeer at such gods, for he followed up his
sacrilegious acts by jesting words. For when he
46
had taken off a golden robe from the statue of the Olympian Jupiter, he
ordered that a woollen garment should be placed upon him, saying that a
golden robe was heavy in summer and cold in winter, but that a woollen
one was adapted to each season. He also took off the golden beard from
AEsculapius, saying that it was unbecoming and unjust, that while his
father Apollo was yet smooth and beardless, the son should be seen to
wear a beard before his father. He also took away the bowls, and
spoils, and some little images(1) which were held in the extended hands
of the statues, and said that he did not take them away, but received
them: for that it would be very foolish and ungrateful to refuse to
receive good things, when offered voluntarily by those from whom men
were accustomed to implore them. He did these things with impunity,
because he was a king and victorious. Moreover, his usual good fortune
also followed him; for he lived even to old age, and handed down the
kingdom in succession to his son. In his case, therefore, because men
could not punish his sacrilegious deeds, it was befitting that the gods
should be their own avengers. But if any humble person shall have
committed any such crime, there are at hand for his punishment the
scourge, fire, the rack,(2) the cross, and whatever torture men can
invent in their anger and rage. But when they punish those who have
been detected in the act of sacrilege, they themselves distrust the
power of their gods. For why should they not leave to them especially
the opportunity of avenging themselves, if they think that they are
able to do so? Moreover, they also imagine that it happened through the
will of the deities that the sacrilegious robbers were discovered and
arrested; and their cruelty is instigated not so much by anger as by
fear, lest they themselves should be visited with punishment if they
failed to avenge the injury done to the gods. And, in truth, they
display incredible shallowness in imagining that the gods will injure
them on account of the guilt of others, who by themselves were unable
to injure those very persons by whom they were profaned and plundered.
But, in fact, they have often themselves also inflicted punishment on
the sacrilegious: that may have occurred even by chance, which has
sometimes happened, but not always. But I will show presently how that
occurred. Now in the meantime I will ask, Why did they not punish so
many and such great acts of sacrilege in Dionysius, who insulted the
gods openly, and not in secret? Why did they not repel this
sacrilegious man, possessed of such power, from their temples, their
ceremonies, and their images? Why, even when he had carried off their
sacred things, had he a prosperous voyage--as he himself, according to
his custom, testified in joke? Do you see, he said to his companions
who feared shipwreck, how prosperous a voyage the immortal gods
themselves give to the sacrilegious? But perhaps he had learnt from
Plato that the gods have no(3) power.
What of Caius Verres? whom his accuser Tully
compares to this same Dionysius, and to Phalaris, and to all tyrants.
Did he not pillage the whole of Sicily, carrying away the images of the
gods, and the ornaments of the temples? It is idle to follow up each
particular instance: I would fain make mention of one, in which the
accuser, with all the force of eloquence--in short, with every effort
of voice and of body--lamented about Ceres of Catina, or of Henna: the
one of whom was of such great sanctity, that it was unlawful for men to
enter the secret recesses of her temple; the other was of such great
antiquity, that all accounts relate that the goddess herself first
discovered grain in the soil of Henna, and that her virgin daughter was
carried away from the same place. Lastly, in the times of the Gracchi,
when the state was disturbed both by seditions and by portents, on its
being discovered in the Sibylline predictions that the most ancient
Ceres ought to be appeased, ambassadors were sent to Henna. This Ceres,
then, either the most holy one, whom it was unlawful for men to behold
even for the sake of adoration, or the most ancient one, whom the
senate and people of Rome had appeased with sacrifices and gifts, was
carried away with impunity by Caius Verres from her secret anti ancient
recesses, his robber slaves having been sent in. The same orator, in
truth, when he affirmed that he had been entreated by the Sicilians to
undertake the cause of the province, made use of these words: "That
they had now not even any gods in their cities to whom they might
betake themselves, since Verres had taken away the most sacred images
from their most venerable shrines." As though, in truth, if Verres had
taken them away from the cities and shrines, he had also taken them
from heaven. From which it appears that those gods have nothing in them
more than the material of which they are made. And not without reason
did the Sicilians have recourse to you, O Marcus Tullius, that is, to a
man; since they had for three years experienced that those gods had no
power. For they would have been most foolish if they had fled for
protection against the injuries of men, to those who were unable to be
angry with Caius Verres on their own behalf. But, it will be urged,
Verres was condemned on account of these deeds. Therefore he was not
punished by the gods, but by the energy of Cicero, by which he either
47
crushed his defenders or withstood his influence.(1) Why should I say
that, in the case of Verres himself, that was not so much a
condemnation as a respite from labour? So that, as the immortal
gods had given a prosperous voyage to Dionysius when he was carrying
off the spoils of gods, so also they appear to have bestowed on Verres
quiet repose, in which he might with tranquility enjoy the fruits of
his sacrilege. For when civil wars afterwards raged, being removed from
all danger and apprehension, under the cloak of condemnation he heard
of the disastrous misfortunes and miserable deaths of others; and he
who appeared to have fallen while all retained their position, he
alone, in truth, retained his position while all fell; until the
proscription of the triumvirs,-- that very proscription, indeed, which
carried off Tully, the avenger of the violated majesty of the
gods,--carried him off, satiated at once with the enjoyment of the
wealth which he had gained by sacrilege, and with life, and worn out by
old age. Moreover, he was fortunate in this very circumstance, that
before his own death he heard of the most cruel end of his accuser; the
gods doubtless providing that this sacrilegious man and spoiler of
their worship should not die before he had received consolation from
revenge.
CHAP. V.--THAT GOD ONLY, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, IS TO BE
WORSHIPPED, AND NOT THE ELEMENTS OR HEAVENLY BODIES; AND THE OPINION OF
THE STOICS IS REFUTED, WHO THINK THAT THE STARS AND PLANETS ARE GODS.
How much better, therefore, is it, leaving vain and
insensible objects, to turn our eyes in that direction where is the
seat and dwelling-place of the true God; who suspended the earth(2) on
a firm foundation, who bespangled the heaven with shining stars; who
lighted up the sun, the most bright and matchless light for the affairs
of men, in proof of His own single majesty; who girded the earth with
seas, and ordered the rivers to flow with perpetual course!
"He also commanded the plains to extend themselves, the valleys to sink
down, the woods to be covered with foliage, the
stony mountains to rise."(3)
All these things truly were not the work of Jupiter, who was born
seventeen hundred years ago; but of the same, "that framer of all
things, the origin of a better world,"(3) who is called God, whose
beginning cannot be comprehended, and ought not to be made the subject
of inquiry. It is sufficient for man, to his full and perfect wisdom,
if he understands the existence of God: the force and sum of which
understanding is this, that he look up to and honour the common Parent
of the human race, and the Maker of wonderful things. Whence some
persons of dull and obtuse mind adore as gods the elements, which are
both created objects and are void of sensibility; who, when they
admired the works of God, that is, the heaven with its various lights,
the earth with its plains and mountains, the seas with their rivers and
lakes and fountains, struck with admiration of these things, and
forgetting the Maker Himself, whom they were unable to see, began to
adore and worship His works. Nor were they able at all to understand
how much greater and more wonderful He is, who made these things out of
nothing. And when they see that these things, in obedience to divine
laws, by a perpetual necessity are subservient to the uses and
interests of men, they nevertheless regard them as gods, being
ungrateful towards the divine bounty, so that they preferred their own
works to their most indulgent God and Father. But what wonder is it if
uncivilized or ignorant men err, since even philosophers of the Stoic
sect are of the same opinion, so as to judge that all the heavenly
bodies which have motion are to be reckoned in the number of
gods; inasmuch as the Stoic Lucilius thus speaks in Cicero:(4) "This
regularity, therefore, in the stars, this great agreement of the times
in such various courses during all eternity, are unintelligible to me
with out the exercise of mind, reason, and design; land when we see
these things in the constellations, we cannot but place these very
objects in the number of the gods." And he thus speaks a little
before: "It remains," he says, "that the motion of the stars is
voluntary; and he who sees these things, would act not only
unlearnedly, but also impiously, if he should deny it." We in truth
firmly deny it; and we prove that you, O philosophers, are not only
unlearned and impious, but also blind, foolish, and senseless, who have
surpassed in shallowness the ignorance of the uneducated. For
they regard as gods only the sun and moon, but you the stars also.
Make known to us, therefore, the mysteries of the
stars, that we may erect altars anti temples to each; that we may know
with what rites and on what day to worship each, with what names and
with what prayers we should call on them; unless perhaps we ought to
worship gods so innumerable without any discrimination, and gods so
minute in a mass. Why should I mention that the argument by which they
infer that all the heavenly bodies are gods, tends to the opposite
conclusion? For if they imagine that they are gods on this account,
because they have their courses fixed and in accordance with reason,
48
they are in error. For it is evident from this that they are not gods,
because it is not permitted them to deviate(1) from their prescribed
orbits. But if they were gods, they would be borne hither and thither
in all directions without any necessity, as living creatures on the
earth, who wander hither and thither as they please, because their
wills are unrestrained, and each is borne wherever inclination may have
led it. Therefore the motion of the stars is not voluntary, but of
necessity, because they obey(2) the laws appointed for them. But when
he was arguing about the courses of the stars, while he understood from
the very harmony of things and times that they were not by chance, he
judged that they were voluntary; as though they could not be moved with
such order and arrangement, unless they contained within them an
understanding acquainted with its own duty. Oh, how difficult is truth
to those who are ignorant of it! how easy to those who know it! If, he
says, the motions of the stars are not by chance, nothing else remains
but that they are voluntary; nay, in truth, as it is plain that they
are not by chance, so is it clear that they are not voluntary. Why,
then, in completing their courses, do they preserve their regularity?
Undoubtedly God, the framer of the universe, so arranged and contrived
them, that they might rim through their courses(3) in the heaven with a
divine and wonderful order, to accomplish the variations of the
successive seasons. Was Archimedes(4) of Sicily able to contrive a
likeness and representation of the universe in hollow brass, in which
he so arranged the sun and moon, that they effected, as it were every
day, motions unequal and resembling the revolutions of the heavens, and
that sphere, while it revolved,(5) exhibited not only the approaches
and withdrawings of the sun, or the increase and waning of the moon,
but also the unequal courses of the stars, whether fixed or wandering?
Was it then impossible for God to plan and create the originals,(6)
when the skill of man was able to represent them by imitation? Would
the Stoic, therefore, if he should have seen the figures of the stars
painted and fashioned in that brass, say that they moved by their own
design, and not by the genius of the artificer? There is therefore in
the stars design, adapted to the accomplishment of their courses; but
it is the design of God, who both made and governs all things, not of
the stars themselves, which are thus moved. For if it had been His will
that the sun should remain.(7) fixed, it is plain that there would be
perpetual day. Also if the stars had no motions, who doubts that there
would have been eternal night? But that there might be vicissitudes of
day and night, it was His will that the stars should move, and move
with such variety that there might not only be mutual interchanges of
light and darkness, by which alternate courses(8) of labour and rest
might be established, but also interchanges of cold and heat, that the
power and influence of the different seasons might be adapted either to
the production or the ripening of the crops. And because philosophers
did not see this skill of the divine power in contriving the movements
of the stars, they supposed them to be living, as though they moved
with feet and of their own accord, and not by the divine intelligence.
But who does not understand why God contrived them? Doubtless lest, as
the light of the sun was withdrawn, a night of excessive darkness
should become too oppressive with its foul and dreadful gloom, and
should be injurious to the living. And so He both bespangled the heaven
with wondrous variety, and tempered the darkness itself with many and
minute lights. How much more wisely therefore does Naso judge, than
they who think that they are devoting themselves to the pursuit of
wisdom, in thinking that those lights were appointed by God to remove
the gloom of darkness! He concludes the book, in which he briefly
comprises the phenomena of nature, with these three verses:--
"These images, so many in number, and of such a figure, God placed in
theheaven; and having scattered them through the gloomy darkness,
Heordered them to give a bright light to the frosty night." But if it
isimpossible that the stars should be gods, it follows that the sun
andmoon cannot be gods, since they differ from the light of the stars
inmagnitude only, and not in their design. And if these are not
gods,the same is true of the heaven, which contains them all.
CHAP. VI.--THAT NEITHER THE WHOLE UNIVERSE NOR THE ELEMENTS ARE GOD,
NOR ARE THEY POSSESSED OF LIFE.
In like manner, if the land on which we tread, and
which we subdue and cultivate for food, is not a god, then the plains
and mountains will not be gods; and if these are not so, it follows
that the whole of the earth cannot appear to be God. In like manner, if
the water, which is
49
adapted to the wants(1) of living creatures for the purpose of drinking
and bathing, is not a god, neither are the fountains gods from which
the water flows. And if the fountains are not gods, neither are the
rivers, which are collected from the fountains. And if the rivers also
are not gods, it follows that the sea, which is made up of rivers,
cannot be considered as God. But if neither the heaven, nor the earth,
nor the sea, which are the parts of the world, can be gods, it follows
that the world altogether is not God; whereas the same Stoics contend
that it is both living and wise, and therefore God. But in this they
are so inconsistent, that nothing is said by them which they do not
also overthrow. For they argue thus: It is impossible that that which
produces from itself sensible objects should itself be insensible. But
the world produces man, who is endowed with sensibility; therefore it
must also itself be sensible. Also they argue: that cannot be without
sensibility, a part of which is sensible; therefore, because man is
sensible, the world, of which man is a part, also possesses
sensibility. The propositions(2) themselves are true, that that which
produces a being endowed with sense is itself sensible; and that that
possesses sense, a part of which is endowed with sense. But the
assumptions by which they draw their conclusions are false; for the
world does not produce man, nor is man a part of the world. For the
same God who created the world, also created man from the beginning:
and man is not a part of the world, in the same manner in which a limb
is a part of the body; for it is possible for the world to be without
man, as it is for a city or house. Now, as a house is the
dwelling-place of one man, and a city of one people, so also the world
is the abode(3) of the whole human race; and that which is inhabited is
one thing, that which inhabits another. But these persons, in their
eagerness to prove that which they had falsely assumed, that the world
is possessed of sensibility, and is God, did not perceive the
consequences of their own arguments. For if man is a part of the world,
and if the world is endowed with sensibility because man is
sensible, therefore it follows that, because man is mortal, the world
must also of necessity be mortal, and not only mortal, but also liable
to all kinds of disease and suffering. And, on the contrary, if the
world is God, its parts also are plainly immortal: therefore man also
is God, because he is, as you say, a part of the world. And if man,
then also both beasts of burden and cattle, and the other kinds of
beasts and of birds, and fishes, since these also in the same manner
are possessed of sensibility, and are parts of the world. But this is
endurable; for the Egyptians worship even these. But the matter comes
to this: that even frogs, and gnats, and ants appear to be gods,
because these also have sensibility, and are parts of the world. Thus
arguments drawn from a false source always lead to foolish and absurd
conclusions. Why should I mention that the same philosophers assert
that the world was constructed(4) for the sake of gods and men as a
common dwelling? Therefore the world is neither god, nor living,
if it has been made: for a living "creature is not made, but born; and
if it has been built, it has been built as a house or ship is
built. Therefore there is a builder of the world, even God; and the
world which has been made is distinct from Him who made it. Now, how
inconsistent and absurd is it, that when they affirm that the heavenly
fires(5) and the other elements of the world are gods, they also say
that the world itself is God! How is it possible that out of a great
heap of gods one God can be made up? If the stars are gods, it follows
that the world is not God, but the dwelling-place of gods. But if the
world is God, it follows that all the things which are in it are not
gods, but members(6) of God, which clearly cannot by themselves(7) take
the name of God. For no one can rightly say that the members of one man
are many men; but, however, there is no similar comparison between a
living being and the world. For because a living being is endowed with
sensibility, its members also have sensibility; nor do they become
senseless s unless they are separated from the body. But what
resemblance does the world present to this? Truly they themselves tell
us, since they do not deny that it was made, that it might be, as it
were, a common abode for gods and men. If, therefore, it has been
constructed as an abode, it is neither itself God, nor are the elements
which are its parts; because a house cannot bear rule over itself, nor
can the parts of which a house consists. Therefore they are refuted not
only by the truth, but even by their own words. For as a house, made
for the purpose of being inhabited, has no sensibility by itself, and
is subject to the master who built or inhabits it; so the world, having
no sensibility of itself, is subject to God its Maker, who made it for
His own use.
50
CHAP. VII.--OF GOD, AND THE RELIGIOUS RITES OF THE FOOLISH; OF
AVARICE,AND THE AUTHORITY OF ANCESTORS.
The foolish, therefore, err in a twofold manner:
first, in preferring the elements, that is, the works of God, to God
Himself; secondly, in worshipping the figures of the elements
themselves under human form. For they form the images of the sun and
moon after the fashion of men; also those of fire, and earth, and sea,
which they call Vulcan, Vesta, and Neptune. Nor do they openly
sacrifice to the elements themselves. Men are possessed with so great a
fondness for representations,(1) that those things which are true are
now esteemed of less value: they are delighted, in fact, with gold, and
jewels, and ivory. The beauty and brilliancy of these things dazzle
their eyes, and they think that there is no religion where these do not
shine. And thus, under pretence of worshipping the gods, avarice and
desire are worshipped. For they believe that the gods love whatever
they themselves desire, whatever it is, on account of which thefts and
robberies and murders daily rage, on account of which wars overthrow
nations and cities throughout the whole world. Therefore they
consecrate their spoils and plunder to the gods, who must undoubtedly
be weak, and destitute of the highest excellence, if they are subject
to desires. For why should we think them celestial if they long for
anything from the earth, or happy if they are in want of anything, or
uncorrupted if they take pleasure in those things in the pursuit of
which the desire of men is not unreservedly condemned? They approach
the gods, therefore not so much on account of religion, which can have
no place in badly acquired and corruptible things, as that they may
gaze upon(2) the gold, and view the brilliancy of polished marble or
ivory, that they may survey with unwearied contemplation garments
adorned with precious stones and colours, or cups studded with
glittering jewels. And the more ornamented are the temples, and the
more beautiful the images, so much the greater majesty are they
believed to have: so entirely is their religion confined(3) to that
which the desire of men admires.
These are the religious institutions handed down to
them by their ancestors, which they persist in maintaining and
defending with the greatest obstinacy. Nor do they consider of what
character they are; but they feel assured of their excellence and truth
on this account. because the ancients have handed them down; anti so
great is the authority of antiquity, that it is said to be a crime to
inquire into it. And thus it is everywhere believed as ascertained
truth. In short, in Cicero,(4) Cotta thus speaks to Lucilius: "You
know, Balbus, what is the opinion of Cotta, what the opinion of the
pontiff. Now let me understand what are your sentiments: for since you
are a philosopher, I ought to receive from you a reason for your
religion; but in the case of our ancestors it is reasonable to believe
them, though no reason is alleged by them." If you believe, why then do
you require a reason, which may have the effect of causing you not to
believe? But if you require a reason, and think that the subject
demands inquiry, then you do not believe; for you make inquiry with
this view, that you may follow it when you have ascertained it. Behold,
reason teaches you that the religious institutions of the gods are not
true: what will you do? Will you prefer to follow antiquity or reason?
And this, indeed, was not imparted(5) to you by another, but was found
out and chosen by yourself, since you have entirely uprooted all
religious systems. If you prefer reason, you must abandon the
institutions and authority of our ancestors, since nothing is right but
that which reason prescribes. But if piety advises you to follow your
ancestors, then admit that they were foolish, who complied with
religious institutions invented contrary to reason; and that you are
senseless, since you worship that which you have proved to be false.
But since the name of ancestors is so greatly objected to us, let us
see, I pray, who those ancestors were from whose authority it is said
to be impious to depart.(6)
Romulus, when he was about to found the city, called
together the shepherds among whom he had grown up; and since their
number appeared inadequate to the rounding of the city, he established
an asylum. To this all the most abandoned men flocked together
indiscriminately from the neighbouring places, without any distinction
of condition. Thus he brought together the people from all these; and
he chose into the senate those who were oldest, and called them
Fathers, by whose advice he might direct all things. And concerning
this senate, Propertius the elegiac poet thus speaks:--
"The trumpet used to call the ancient Quirites to an assembly;(7) those
hundred in the field often formed the senate. The
senate-house, whichnow is raised aloft and shines with the well-robed
senate, receivedthe Fathers clothed in skins, rustic spirits."
These are the Fathers whose decrees learned and sagacious men obey with
the greatest devotion; and all posterity must judge that to be true and
unchangeable which an hundred old men clothed in skins established at
their will; who, however,
51
as has been mentioned in the first book,(1) were enticed by Pompilius
to believe the truth of those sacred rites which he himself delivered.
Is there any reason why their authority should be so highly esteemed by
posterity, since during their life no one either high or low judged
them worthy of affinity?(2)
CHAP. VIII.--OF THE USE OF REASON IN RELIGION; AND OF DREAMS, AUGURIES,
ORACLES, AND SIMILAR PORTENTS.
It is therefore right, especially in a matter on
which the whole plan of life turns, that every one should place
confidence in himself, and use his own judgment and individual capacity
for the investigation and weighing of the truth, rather than through
confidence in others to be deceived by their errors, as though he
himself were without understanding. God has given wisdom to all
alike,(3) that they might be able both to investigate things which they
have not heard, and to weigh things which they have heard. Nor, because
they preceded us in time did they also outstrip us in wisdom; for if
this is given equally to all, we cannot be anticipated(4) in it by
those who precede us. It is incapable of diminution, as the light and
brilliancy of the sun; because, as the sun is the light of the eyes, so
is wisdom the light of man's heart. Wherefore, since wisdom--that is,
the inquiry after truth--is natural to all, they deprive themselves of
wisdom, who without any judgment approve of the discoveries of their
ancestors, and like sheep are led by others. But this escapes their
notice, that the name of ancestors being introduced, they think it
impossible that they themselves should have more knowledge because they
are called descendants, or that the others should be unwise because
they are called ancestors.(5) What, therefore, prevents us from taking
a precedent(6) from them, that as they handed down to posterity their
false inventions, so we who have discovered the truth may hand down
better things to our posterity? There remains therefore a great subject
of inquiry, the discussion of which does not come from talent, but from
knowledge: and this must be explained at greater length, that nothing
at all may be left in doubt. For perhaps some one may have recourse to
those things which are handed down
by many and undoubted authorities; that those very persons, whom we
have shown to be no gods, have often displayed their majesty both by
prodigies, and dreams, and auguries, and oracles. And, indeed, many
wonderful things may be enumerated, and especially this, that Accius
Navius, a consummate augur, when he was warning Tarquinius Priscus to
undertake the commencement of nothing new without the previous sanction
of auguries,(7) and the king, detracting from(8) the credit due to his
art, told him to consult the birds, and then to announce to him whether
it was possible for that which he himself had conceived in his mind to
be accomplished, and Navius affirmed that it was possible; then take
this whetstone, he said, and divide it with a razor. But the other
without any hesitation took and cut it.
In the next place is the fact of Castor and Pollux
having been seen in the Latin war at the lake of Juturna washing off
the sweat of their horses, when their temple which adjoins the
fountain had been open of its own accord. In the Macedonian war the
same deities, mounted on white horses, are said to have presented
themselves to Publius Vatienus as he went to Rome at night, announcing
that King Perseus had been vanquished and taken captive on that day,
the truth of which was proved by letters received from Paulus(9) a few
days afterwards. That also is wonderful, that the statue of Fortune, in
the form(10) of a woman, is reported to have spoken more than once;
also that the statue of Juno Moneta,(11) when, on the capture of Veii,
one of the soldiers, being sent to remove it, sportively and in jest
asked whether she wished to remove to Rome, answered that she wished
it. Claudia also is set forth as an example of a miracle. For when, in
accordance with the Sibylline books, the Idaean mother was sent for,
and the ship in which she was conveyed had grounded on a shoal of the
river Tiber, and could not be moved by any force, they report that
Claudia, who had been always regarded as unchaste on account of her
excess in personal adornment, with bended knees entreated the goddess,
if she judged her to be chaste, to follow her girdle; anti thus the
ship, which could not be moved by all the strong men,(12) was moved by
a single woman. It is equally wonderful, that during the prevalence of
a pestilence, AEsculapius, being called from Epidaurus, is said to have
released the city of Rome from the long-continued plague.
52
Sacrilegious persons can also be mentioned, by the
immediate punishment of whom the gods are believed to have avenged the
injury done to them. Appius Claudius the censor having, against the
advice of the oracle, transferred the sacred rites of Hercules to the
public slaves,(1) was deprived of his eyesight; and the Potitian gens,
which abandoned(2) its privilege, within the space of one year became
extinct. Likewise the censor Fulvius, when he had taken away the marble
tiles from the temple of the Lacinian(3) Juno, to cover the temple of
the equestrian Fortuna, which he had built at Rome, was deprived of his
senses, and having lost his two sons who were serving in Illyricum, was
consumed with the greatest grief of mind. Turullius also, the
lieutenant of Mark Antony, when he had cut down a grove of AEsculapius
in Cos,(4) and built a fleet, was afterwards slain at the same place by
the soldiers of Caesar. To these examples is added Pyrrhus, who,
having taken away money from the treasure of the Locrian Proserpine,
was shipwrecked, and dashed against the shores near to the temple of
the goddess, so that nothing was found uninjured except that money.
Ceres of Miletus also gained for herself great veneration among men.
For when the city had been taken by Alexander, and the soldiers had
rushed in to plunder her temple, a flame of fire suddenly thrown upon
them blinded them all.
There are also found dreams which seem to show the
power of the gods. For it is said that Jupiter presented himself to
Tiberius Atinius, a plebeian, in his sleep, and enjoined him to
announce to the consuls and senate, that in the last Circensian(5)
games a public dancer had displeased him, because a certain Antonius
Maximus had severely scourged a slave under the furca(6) in the middle
of the circus, and had led him to punishment, and that on this account
the games ought to be repeated. And when he had neglected this command,
he is said on the same day to have lost his son, and to have been
himself seized by a severe disease; and that when he again perceived
the same image asking whether he had suffered sufficient punishment for
the neglect of his command, he was carried on a litter to the consuls;
and having explained the whole matter in the senate, he regained
strength of body, and returned to his house on foot. And that dream
also was not less wonderful, to which it is said that Augustus Caesar
owed his preservation. For when in the civil war with Brutus he was
afflicted with a severe disease, and had determined to abstain from
battle, the image of Minerva presented itself to his physician
Artorius, advising him that Caesar should not confine himself to the
camp on account of his bodily infirmity. He was therefore carried on a
litter to the army, and on the same day the camp was taken by Brutus.
Many other examples of a similar nature may be brought forward; but I
fear that, if I shall delay too long in the setting forth of contrary
subjects, I may either appear to have forgotten my purpose, or may
incur the charge of loquacity.
CHAP. IX.--OF THE DEVIL, THE WORLD,GOD, PROVIDENCE, MAN, AND HIS
WISDOM.
I will therefore set forth the method of all
these things, that difficult and obscure subjects may be more easily
understood; and I will bring to light all these deceptions(7) of the
pretended deity, led by which men have departed very far from the
way of truth. But I will retrace the matter far back from its source;
that if any, unacquainted with the truth and ignorant, shall apply
himself to the reading of this book, he may be instructed, and may
understand what can in truth be "the source and origin of these evils;"
and having received light, may perceive his own errors and those of the
whole human race.
Since God was possessed(8) of the greatest foresight
for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action,
before He commenced this business of the world,--inasmuch as there was
in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete
goodness,--in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him,
and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who
might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father. But how He
willed that, I will endeavour to show in the fourth book.(9) Then He
made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did
not remain. Therefore he was infected with his own envy as with poison,
and passed from good to evil; and at his own will, which had been given
to him by God unfettered,(10) he acquired for himself a contrary name.
From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy. For he
envied his predecessor,(11) who through his stedfastness(12) is
acceptable and dear to God the Father. This being, who from good became
53
evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks diabolus:(1) we call him
accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself
entices us. God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set
over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the
same time as a counsellor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and
accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge,(2) and judgment,
and power; concerning whom I now speak more sparingly, because in
another place(3) both His excellence, and His name, and His nature must
be related by us. Let no one inquire of what materials God made these
works so great and wonderful: for He made all things out of nothing.
Nor are the poets to be listened to, who say
that in the beginning was a chaos, that is, a confusion of matter and
the elements; but that God afterwards divided all that mass, and having
separated each object from the confused heap, and arranged them in
order, He constructed and adorned the world. Now it is easy to reply to
these persons, who do not understand the power of God: for they believe
that He can produce nothing, except out of materials already
existing(4) and prepared; in which error philosophers also were
involved. For Cicero, while discussing the nature of the gods,(5) thus
speaks: "First of all, therefore, it is not probable(6) that the
matter(7) from which all things arose was made by divine providence,
but that it has, and has had, a force and nature of its own. As
therefore the builder, when he is about to erect any building, does not
himself make the materials, but uses those which are already prepared,
and the statuary(8) also uses the wax; so that divine providence ought
to have had materials at hand, not of its own production, but already
prepared for use. But if matter was not made by God, then neither was
the earth, and water, and air, and fire, made by God." Oh, how many
faults there are in these ten lines First, that he who in almost all
his other disputations and books was a maintainer of the divine
providence, and who used very acute arguments in assailing those who
denied the existence of a providence, now himself, as a traitor or
deserter, endeavoured to take away providence; in whose case, if you
wish to oppose(9) him, neither consideration nor labour is required: it
is only necessary to remind him of his own words. For it will be
impossible for Cicero to be more strongly refuted by any one than by
Cicero himself. But let us make this concession to the custom and
practice of the Academics,(10) that men are permitted to speak with
great freedom, and to entertain what sentiments they may wish. Let us
examine the sentiments themselves. It is not probable, he says, that
matter was made by God. By what arguments do you prove this? For you
gave no reason for its being improbable. Therefore, on the contrary, it
appears to me exceedingly probable; nor does it appear so without
reason, when I reflect that there is something more in God, whom you
verily reduce to the weakness of man, to whom you allow nothing else
but the mere workmanship. In what respect, then, will that divine power
differ from man, if God also, as man does, stands in need of the
assistance of another? But He does stand in need of it, if He can
construct nothing unless He is furnished with materials by another. But
if this is the case, it is plain that His power is imperfect, and
he who prepared the material(11) must be judged more powerful. By what
name, therefore, shall he be called who excels God in
power?--since it is greater to make that which is one's own, than
to arrange those things which are another's. But if it is impossible
that anything should be more powerful than God, who must necessarily be
of perfect strength, power, and intelligence, it follows that He
who made the things which are composed of matter, made matter also. For
it was neither possible nor befitting that anything should exist
without the exercise of God's power, or against His will. But it is
probable, he says, that matter has, and always has had, a force
and nature of its own.(12) What force could it have, without any
one to give it? what nature, without any one to produce it? If it had
force, it took that force from some one. But from whom could it
take it, unless it were from God? Moreover, if it had a nature,
which plainly is so called from being produced, it must have been
produced. But from whom could it have derived its existence, except
God? For nature, from which you say that all things had their origin,
if it has no understanding, can make nothing. But if it has the power
of producing and making, then it has understanding, and must be God.
For that force can be called by no other name, in which there is both
the foresight(13) to plan, and the skill and power to carry into
effect. Therefore Seneca, the most intelligent of all the Stoics, says
better, who saw "that nature was nothing else but God." Therefore he
54
says, "Shall we not praise God, who possesses natural excellence?" For
He did not learn it from any one. Yes, truly, we will praise Him; for
although it is natural to Him, He gave it to Himself,(1) since God
Himself is nature. When, therefore, you assign the origin of all things
to nature, and take it from God, you are in the same difficulty:--
"You pay your debt by borrowing,(2) Geta."
For while simply changing the name, you clearly admit that it was made
by the same person by whom you deny that it was made.
There follows a most senseless comparison. "As the
builder," he says, "when he is about to erect any building, does not
himself make the materials, but uses those which are already prepared,
and the statuary also the wax; so that divine providence ought to have
had materials at hand, not of its own production, but already prepared
for use." Nay rather it ought not; for God will have less power if He
makes from materials already provided, which is the part of man. The
builder will erect nothing without wood, for he cannot make the wood
itself; and not to be able to do this is the part of human weakness.
But God Himself makes the materials for Himself, because He has the
power. For to have the power is the property of God; for if He is not
able, He is not God. Man produces his works out of that which already
exists, because through his mortality he is weak, and through his
weakness his power is limited and moderate; but God produces His works
out of that which has no existence, because through His eternity He is
strong, and through His strength His power is immense, which has no end
or limit, like the life of the Maker Himself. What wonder, then, if
God, when He was about to make the world, first prepared the material
from which to make it, and prepared it out of that which had no
existence? Because it is impossible for God to borrow anything from
another source, inasmuch as all things are in Himself and from Himself.
For if there is anything before Him, and if anything has been made, but
not by Him, He will therefore lose both the power and the name of God.
But it may be said matter was never made, like God, who out of matter
made this world. In that case, it follows that two eternal principles
are established, and those indeed opposed to one another, which cannot
happen without discord and destruction. For those things which have a
contrary force and method must of necessity come into collision.
In this manner
it will be impossible that both should be eternal, if they are opposed
to one another, because one must overpower the other. Therefore the
nature of that which is eternal cannot be otherwise than simple, so
that all things descended from that source as from a fountain.
Therefore either God proceeded from matter, or matter from God. Which
of these is more true, is easily understood. For of these two, one is
endued with sensibility, the other is insensible. The power of making
anything cannot exist, except in that which has sensibility,
intelligence, reflection, and the power of motion. Nor can anything be
begun, or made, or completed, unless it shall have been foreseen by
reason how it shall be made before it exists, and how it shall
endure(3) after it has been made. In short, he only makes anything who
has the will to make it, and hands to complete that which he has
willed. But that which is insensible always lies inactive and torpid;
nothing can originate in that source where there is no voluntary
motion. For if every animal is possessed of reason, it is certain that
it cannot be produced from that which is destitute of reason, nor can
that which is not present in the original source(4) be received from
any other quarter. Nor, however, let it disturb any one, that certain
animals appear to be born from the earth. For the earth does not give
birth to these of itself, but the Spirit of God, without which nothing
is produced. Therefore God did not arise from matter, because a being
endued with sensibility can never spring from one that is insensible, a
wise one from one that is irrational, one that is incapable of
suffering from one that can suffer, an incorporeal being from a
corporeal one; but matter is rather from God. For whatever consists of
a body solid, and capable of being handled, admits of an external
force. That which admits of force is capable of dissolution; that which
is dissolved perishes; that which perishes must necessarily have had an
origin; that which had an origin had a source(5) from which it
originated, that is, some maker, who is intelligent, foreseeing, and
skilled in making. There is one assuredly, and that no other than God.
And since He is possessed of sensibility, intelligence, providence,
power, and vigour, He is able to create and make both animated and
inanimate objects, because He has the means of making everything. But
matter cannot always have existed, for if it had existed it would be
incapable of change. For that which always was, does not cease always
to be; and that which had no beginning must of necessity be without an
end. Moreover, it is easier for that which had a beginning to be
without an end, than for that which had no beginning
55
to have an end. Therefore if matter was not made, nothing can be made
from it. But if nothing can be made from it, then matter itself can
have no existence. For matter is that out of which something is made.
But everything out of which anything is made, inasmuch as it has
received the hand of the artificer, is destroyed,(1) and begins to be
some other thing. Therefore, since matter had an end, at the time when
the world was made out of it, it also had a beginning. For that which
is destroyed(1) was previously built up; that which is loosened was
previously bound up; that which is brought to an end was begun. If,
then, it is inferred from its change and end, that matter had a
beginning, from whom could that beginning have been, except from God?
God, therefore, is the only being who was not made; and therefore He
can destroy other things, but He Himself cannot be destroyed. That
which was in Him will always be permanent, because He has not been
produced or sprung from any other source; nor does His birth depend on
any other object, which being changed may cause His dissolution. He is
of Himself, as we said in the first book;(2) and therefore He is such
as He willed that He should be, incapable of suffering, unchangeable,
incorruptible, blessed, and eternal.
But now the conclusion, with which Tully finished
the sentiment, is much more absurd.(3) "But if matter," he says, "was
not made by God, the earth indeed, and water, and air, and fire, were
not made by God." How skilfully he avoided the danger! For he stated
the former point as though it required no proof, whereas it was much
more uncertain than that on account of which the statement was made. If
matter, he says, was not made by God, the world was not made by God. He
preferred to draw a false inference from that which is false, than a
true one from that which is true. And though uncertain things ought to
be proved from those which are certain, he drew a proof from an
uncertainty, to overthrow that which was certain. For, that the world
was made by divine providence (not to mention Trismegistus, who
proclaims this; not to mention the verses of the Sibyls, who make the
same announcement; not to mention the prophets,(4) who with one impulse
and with harmonious(5) voice. bear witness that the world was made,(6)
and that it
was the workmanship of God), even the philosophers almost universally
agree; for this is the opinion of the Pythagoreans, the Stoics, and the
Peripatetics, who are the chief of every sect.(7) In short, from those
first seven wise men,(8) even to Socrates and Plato, it was held as an
acknowledged and undoubted fact; until many ages afterwards(9) the
crazy Epicurus lived, who alone ventured to deny that which is most
evident, doubtless through the desire of discovering novelties, that he
might found a sect in his own name. And because he could find out
nothing new, that he might still appear to disagree with the others, he
wished to overthrow old opinions. But in this all the philosophers who
snarled(10) around him, refuted him. It is more certain, therefore,
that the world was arranged by providence, than that matter was
collected(11) by providence. Wherefore he ought not to have supposed
that the world was not made by divine providence, because its matter
was not made by divine providence; but because the world was made by
divine providence, he ought to have concluded that matter also was made
bY the Deity. For it is more credible that matter was made by God,
because He is all-powerful, than that the world was not made by God,
because nothing can be made without mind, intelligence, and design. But
this is not the fault of Cicero, but of the sect. For when he had
undertaken a disputation, by which he might take away the nature of the
gods, respecting which philosophers prated, in his ignorance of the
truth he imagined that the Deity must altogether be taken away. He was
able therefore to take away the gods, for they had no existence. But
when he attempted to overthrow the divine providence, which is in the
one God, because he had begun to strive against the truth, his
arguments failed, and he necessarily fell into this pitfall, from which
he was unable to withdraw himself. Here, then, I hold him firmly fixed;
I hold him fastened to the spot, since Lucilius, who disputed on the
other side, was silent. Here, then, is the turning-point;(12) on this
everything depends. Let Cotta disentangle himself, if he can, from this
difficulty;(13) let him bring forward arguments by which he may prove
that matter has always existed, which no providence made. Let him show
how anything ponderous and heavy either could exist without an author
or could be changed, and how that which
56
always was ceased to be, so that that which never was might begin to
be. And if he shall prove these things, then, and not till then, will I
admit that the world itself was not established by divine providence,
and yet in making this admission I shall hold him fast by another
snare. For he will turn round again to the same point, to which he will
be unwilling to return, so as to say that both the matter of which the
world consists, and the world which consists of matter, existed by
nature; though I contend that nature itself is God. For no one can make
wonderful things, that is, things existing with the greatest order,
except one who has intelligence, foresight, and power. And thus it will
come to be seen that God made all things, and that nothing at all can
exist which did not derive its origin from God.
But the same, as often as he follows the
Epicureans,(1) and does not admit that the world was made by God, is
wont to inquire by what hands by what machines, by what levers, by what
contrivance, He made this work of such magnitude. He might see, if he
could have lived at that time in which God made it. But, that man might
not look into the works of God, He was unwilling to bring him into this
world until all things were completed. But he could not be brought in:
for how could he exist while the heaven above was being built, and the
foundations of the earth beneath were being laid; when humid things,
perchance, either benumbed with excessive stiffness were becoming
congealed, or seethed with fiery heat and rendered solid were
growing hard? Or how could he live when the sun was not yet
established, and neither corn nor animals were produced? Therefore it
was necessary that man should be last made, when the finishing(2) hand
had now been applied to the world and to all other things. Finally, the
sacred writings teach that man was the last work of God, and that he
was brought into this world as into a house prepared and made ready;
for all things were made on his account. The poets also acknowledge the
same. Ovid, having described the completion of the world, and the
formation of the other animals, added:(3)--
"An animal more sacred than these, and more capacious of a lofty mind,
was yet wanting, and which might exercise dominion over the rest. Man
was produced."
So impious must we think it to search into those things which God
wished to be kept secret! But his inquiries were not made through a
desire of hearing or learning, but of refuting; for he was confident
that no one could assert that. As though, in truth, it were to be
supposed that these things were not made by God, because it cannot be
plainly seen in what manner they were created! If you had been brought
up in a well-built and ornamented house, and had never seen a
workshop,(4) would you have supposed that that house was not built by
man, because you did not know how it was built? You would assuredly ask
the same question about the house which you now ask about the world--by
what hands, with what implements, man had contrived such great works;
and especially if you should see large stones, immense blocks,(5) vast
columns, the whole work lofty and elevated, would not these things
appear to you to exceed the measure of human strength, because you
would not know that these things were made not so much by strength as
by skill and ingenuity?
But if man, in whom nothing is perfect, nevertheless
effects more by skill than his feeble strength would permit, what
reason is there why it should appear to you incredible, when it is
alleged that the world was made by God, in whom, since He is perfect,
wisdom can have no limit, and strength no measure? His works are seen
by the eyes; but how He made them is not seen even by the mind,
because, as Hermes says, the mortal cannot draw nigh to (that is,
approach nearer, and follow up with the understanding) the immortal,
the temporal(6) to the eternal, the corruptible to the incorruptible.
And on this account the earthly animal is as yet incapable of
perceiving(7) heavenly things, because it is shut in and held as it
were in custody by the body, so that it cannot discern all things with
free and unrestrained perception. Let him know, therefore, how
foolishly he acts, who inquires into things which are indescribable.
For this is to pass the limits of one's own condition, and not to
understand how far it is permitted man to approach. In short, when God
revealed the truth to man, He wished us only to know those things which
it concerned man to know for the attainment of life; but as to the
things which related to a profane and eager curiosity(8) He was silent,
that they might be secret. Why, then, do you inquire into things which
you cannot know, and if you knew them you would not be happier. It is
perfect wisdom in man, if he knows that there is but one God, and that
all things were made by Him.
CHAP. X.--OF THE WORLD, AND ITS PARTS, THE ELEMENTS
AND SEASONS.
Now, having refitted those who entertain false
sentiments respecting the world and God its
57
Maker, let us return to the divine workmanship of the world, concerning
which we are informed in the sacred' writings of our holy religion.
Therefore, first of all, God made the heaven, and suspended it on high,
that it might be the seat of God Himself, the Creator. Then He founded
the earth, and placed it under the heaven, as a dwelling-place for man,
with the other races of animals. He willed that it should be surrounded
and held together by water. But He adorned and filled His own
dwelling-place with bright lights; He decked it with the sun, and the
shining orb of the moon, and with the glittering signs of the twinkling
stars; but He placed on the earth the darkness, which is contrary to
these. For of itself the earth contains no light, unless it receives it
from the heaven, in which He placed perpetual light, and the gods
above, and eternal life; and, on the contrary, He placed on the earth
darkness, and the inhabitants of the lower regions, and death. For
these things are as far removed from the former ones, as evil things
are from good, and vices from virtues. He also established two parts of
the earth itself opposite to one another, and of a different
character,--namely, the east and the west; and of these the east is
assigned to God, because He Himself is the fountain of light, and the
enlightener, of all things, and because He makes us rise to eternal
life. But the west is ascribed to that disturbed and depraved mind,
because it conceals the light, because it always brings on darkness,
and because it makes men die and perish in their sins. For as light
belongs to the east, and the whole course of life depends upon the
light, so darkness belongs to the west: but death and destruction are
contained in darkness.(3) Then He measured out in the same way the
other parts,--namely, the south and the north, which parts are closely
united with the two former. For that which is more glowing with the
warmth of the sun, is nearest to and closely united with the east; but
that which is torpid with colds and perpetual ice belongs to the same
division as the extreme west. For as darkness is opposed to light, so
is cold to heat. As, therefore, heat is nearest to light, so is the
south to the east; and as cold is nearest to darkness, so is the
northern region to the west. And He assigned to each of these parts its
own time,--namely, the spring to the east, the summer to the southern
region, the autumn belongs to the west, and the winter to the north. In
these two parts also, the southern and the northern, is contained a
figure of life and death, because life consists in heat, death in cold.
And as heat arises from fire, so does cold from water. And according to
the division of these parts He also made day and night, to complete by
alternate succession with each other the courses(4) and perpetual
revolutions of time, which we call years. The day, which the first east
supplies, must belong to God, as all things do, which are of a better
character. But the night, which the extreme west brings on, belongs,
indeed, to him whom we have said to be the rival of God.
And even in the making of these God had regard to
the future; for He made them so, that a representation of true religion
and of false superstitions might be shown from these. For as the sun,
which rises daily, although it is but one,--from which Cicero would
have it appear that it was called Sol,(5) because the stars are
obscured, and it alone is seen,--yet, since it is a true light, and of
perfect fulness, and of most powerful heat, and enlightens all things
with the brightest splendour; so God, although He is one only, is
possessed of perfect majesty, and might, and splendour. But night,
which we say is assigned to that depraved adversary of God,(6) shows by
a resemblance the many and various superstitions which belong to him.
For although innumerable stars appear to glitter and shine,(7) yet,
because they are not full and solid lights, and send forth no heat, nor
overpower the darkness by their multitude, therefore these two things
are found to be of chief importance, which have power differing from
and opposed to one another--heat and moisture, which God wonderfully
designed for the support and production of all things. For since the
power of God consists in heat and fire, if He had not tempered its
ardour and force by mingling matter of moisture and cold, nothing could
have been born or have existed, but whatever had begun to exist must
immediately have been destroyed by conflagration. From which also some
philosophers and poets said that the world was made up of a discordant
concord; but they did not thoroughly understand the matter. Heraclitus
said that all things were produced from fire Thales of Miletus from
water. Each saw something of the truth, and yet each was in error: for
if one element only had existed, water could not have been produced
from fire, nor, on the other hand, could fire from water; but it is
more true that all things were produced from a mingling of the two.
Fire, indeed, cannot be mixed with water, because they are opposed to
each other; and if they came into collision, the one which proved
superior must destroy the other. But their sub-
58
stances may be mingled. The substance of fire is heat; of water,
moisture. Rightly therefore does Ovid say:(1)--
"For when moisture and heat have become mingled, they
conceive, and all things arise from these two. And though fire is at
variance with water, moist vapour produces all things, and discordant
concord(2) is adapted to production."
For the one element is, as it were, masculine; the other, as it were,
feminine: the one active, the other passive. And on this account it was
appointed by the ancients that marriage contracts should be ratified by
the solemnity(3) of fire and water, because the young of animals are
furnished with a body by heat and moisture, and are thus animated to
life.
For, since every animal consists of soul(4) and
body, the material of the body is contained in moisture, that of the
soul in heat: which we may know from the offspring of birds; for though
these are full of thick moisture, unless they are cherished by
creative(5) heat, the moisture cannot become a body, nor can the body
be animated with life. Exiles also were accustomed to be forbidden the
use of fire and water: for as yet it seemed unlawful to inflict capital
punishment on any, however guilty, inasmuch as they were men. When,
therefore, the use of those things in which the life of men consists
was forbidden, it was deemed to be equivalent to the actual infliction
of death on him who had been thus sentenced. Of such importance were
these two elements considered, that they believed them to be essential
for the production of man, and for the sustaining of his life. One of
these is common to us with the other animals, the other has been
assigned to man alone. For we, being a heavenly and immortal race,(6)
make use of fire, which is given to us as a proof of immortality, since
fire is from heaven; and its nature, inasmuch as it is moveable and
rises upward, contains the principle of life. But the other animals,
inasmuch as they are altogether mortal, make use of water only, which
is a corporeal and earthly element. And the nature of this, because it
is moveable, and has a downward inclination, shows a figure of death.
Therefore the cattle do not look up to heaven, nor do they entertain
religious sentiments, since the use of fire is removed from them.
But from what source or in what manner God lighted up or caused(7) to
flow these two principal elements, fire and water, He who made them
alone can know.(8)
CHAP. XI.--OF LIVING CREATURES, OF MAN; PROMETHEUS, DEUCALION, THE
PARCAE.
Therefore, having finished the world, He commanded
that animals of various kinds and of dissimilar forms should be
created, both great and
smaller. And they were made in pairs, that is, one of each sex; from
the offspring of which both the air and the earth and the seas were
filled. And God gave nourishment to all these by their kinds(9) from
the earth, that they might be of service to men: some, for instance,
were for food, others for clothing; but those which are of great
strength He gave, that they might assist in cultivating the earth,
whence they were called beasts of burthen.(10) And thus, when all
things had been settled with a wonderful arrangement, He determined to
prepare for Himself an eternal kingdom, and to create innumerable
souls, on whom He might bestow immortality. Then He made for Himself a
figure endowed with perception and intelligence, that is, after the
likeness of His own image, than which nothing can be more perfect: He
formed man out of the dust of the ground, from which he was called
man,(11) because He was made from the earth. Finally, Plato says that
the human form(12) was godlike; as does the Sibyl, who says,--
"Thou art my image, O man, possessed of right reason."(13)
The poets also have not given a different account respecting this
formation of man, however they may have corrupted it; for they said
that man was made by Prometheus from clay. They were not mistaken in
the matter itself, but in the name of the artificer. For they had never
come into contact with a line of the truth; but the things which were
handed down by the oracles of the prophets, and contained in the sacred
book(14) of God; those things collected from fables and obscure
opinion, and distorted, as the truth is wont to be corrupted by the
multitude when spread abroad by various conversations, every one
adding something to that which he had heard,--those things they
comprised in their poems; and in this, indeed, they acted foolishly, in
that they attributed so wonderful and divine a work to man. For what
need was there that man should be formed of clay, when he might he
generated in the same way in which Prometheus himself was born from
Iapetus? For if he was a man, he was able to beget a man, but not to
make one. But his punishment on Mount
59
Caucasus declares that he was not of the gods. But no one reckoned his
father Iapetus or his uncle(1) Titan as gods, because the high dignity
of the kingdom was in possession of Saturn only, by which he obtained
divine honours, together with all his descendants. This invention of
the poets admits of refutation by many arguments. It is agreed by all
that the deluge took place for the destruction of wickedness, and for
its removal from the earth. Now, both philosophers and poets, and
writers of ancient history, assert the same, and in this they
especially agree with the language of the prophets. If, therefore, the
flood took place for the purpose of destroying wickedness, which had
increased through the excessive multitude of men, how was Prometheus
the maker of man, when his son Deucalion is said by the same writers to
have been the only one who was preserved on account of his
righteousness? How could a single descent(2) and a single generation
have so quickly filled the world with men? But it is plain that they
have corrupted this also, as they did the former account; since they
were ignorant both at what time the flood happened on the earth, and
who it was that deserved on account of his righteousness to be saved
when the human race perished, and how and with whom he was saved: all
of which are taught by the inspired(3) writings. It is plain,
therefore, that the account which they give respecting the work of
Prometheus is false.
But because I had said(4) that the poets are not
accustomed to speak that which is altogether untrue, but to wrap up in
figures and thus to obscure their accounts, I do not say that; they
spoke falsely in this, but that first of all Prometheus made the image
of a man of rich and soft clay, and that he first originated the art of
making statues and images; inasmuch as he lived in the times of
Jupiter, during which temples began to be built, and new modes of
worshipping the gods introduced. And thus the truth was corrupted by
falsehood; and that which was said to have been made by God began also
to be ascribed to man, who imitated the divine work. But the making of
the true and living man from clay is the work of God. And this also is
related by Hermes,(5) who not only says that man was made by God, after
the image of God, but he even tried to explain in how skilful a manner
He formed each limb in the human body, since there is none of them
which is not as available for the necessity of use as for beauty. But
even the Stoics, when they discuss the subject of providence, attempt
to do
this; and Tully followed them in many places. But, however, he briefly
treats of a subject so copious and fruitful, which I now pass over on
this account, because I have lately written a particular book on this
subject to my disciple Demetrianus. But I cannot here omit that which
some erring philosophers say, that men and the other animals arose from
the earth without any author; whence that expression of Virgil:(6)--
"And the earth-born(7) race of men raised its head from the hard
fields."
And this opinion is especially entertained by those who deny the
existence of a divine providence. For the Stoics attribute the
formation of animals to divine skill. But Aristotle freed himself from
labour and trouble, by saying that the world always existed, and
therefore that the human race, and the other things which are in it,
had no beginning, but always had been, and always would be. But when we
see that each animal separately, which had no previous existence,
begins to exist, and ceases to exist, it is necessary that the whole
race must at some time have begun to exist, and must cease at some time
because it had a beginning.
For all things must necessarily be comprised in
three periods of time--the past, the present, and the future. The
commencement(8) belongs to the past, existence to the present,
dissolution to the future. And all these things are seen in the case of
men individually: for we begin when we are born; and we exist while we
live; and we cease when we die. On which account they would have it
that there are three Parcae:(9) one who warps the web of life for men;
the second, who weaves it; the third, who cuts and finishes it. But in
the whole race of men, because the present time only is seen, yet from
it the past also, that is, the commencement, and the future, that is,
the dissolution, are inferred. For since it exists, it is evident that
at some time it began to exist, for nothing can exist without a
beginning; and because it had a beginning, it is evident that it will
at some time have an end. For that cannot, as a whole, be immortal,
which consists of mortals. For as we all die individually, it is
possible that, by some calamity, all may perish simultaneously: either
through the unproductiveness of the earth, which sometimes happens in
particular cases; or through the general spread of pestilence, which
often desolates separate cities and countries; or by the conflagration
of the world, as is said to have happened in the case of Phaethon; or
by a deluge, as is reported in the time of Deucalion, when
60
the whole race was destroyed with the exception of one man. And if this
deluge happened by chance, it might assuredly have happened
that he who was the only survivor should perish. But if he
was reserved by the will of divine providence, as it cannot be denied,
to recruit mankind, it is evident that the life and the destruction of
the human race are in the power of God. And if it is possible for
it to die altogether, because it dies in parts, it is evident that it
had an origin at some time; and as the liability to decay(1) bespeaks a
beginning, so also it gives proof of an end. And if these things
are true, Aristotle will be unable to maintain that the world also
itself had no beginning. But if Plato and Epicurus extort this
from Aristotle, yet Plato and Aristotle, who thought that the world
would be everlasting, will, notwithstanding their eloquence, be
deprived of this also by Epicurus, because it follows, that, as it had
a beginning, it must also have an end. But we will speak of these
things at greater length in the last book. Now let us revert to
the origin of man.
CHAP. XII.--THAT ANIMALS WERE NOT PRODUCED SPONTANEOUSLY, BUT BY
A DIVINE ARRANGEMENT, OF WHICH GOD WOULD HAVE GIVEN US THE KNOWLEDGE,
IF IT WERE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR US TO KNOW IT.
They say that at certain changes of the heaven, and
motions of the stars, there existed a kind of maturity(2) for the
production of animals;
and thus that the new earth, retaining the productive seed, brought
forth of itself certain vessels(3) after the likeness of wombs,
respecting
which Lucretius(4) says,--
"Wombs
grew attached to the earth by roots;"
and that these, when they had become mature, being rent by the
compulsion of nature, produced tender animals; afterwards, that the
earth itself abounded with a kind of moisture which resembled milk, and
that animals were supported by this nourishment. How, then, were they
able to endure or avoid the force of the cold or of heat, or to be born
at all, since the sun would scorch them or the cold contract them? But,
they say, at the beginning of the world there was no winter nor summer,
but a perpetual spring of an equable temperature.(5) Why, then, do we
see that none of these things now happens? Because, they say, it was
necessary that it should once happen, that animals might be born; but
after they began to exist, and the power of generation was given to
them, the earth ceased to bring forth, and the condition of time(6) was
changed. Oh, how easy it is to refute falsehoods! In the first place,
nothing can exist in this world which does not continue permanent, as
it began. For neither were the sire and moon and stars then uncreated;
nor. having been created, were they without their motions; nor did that
divine government, which manages and rules their courses, fail to begin
its exercise together with them. In the next place, if it is as they
say, there must of necessity be a providence, and they fall into that
very condition which they especially avoid. For while the animals were
yet unborn, it is plain that some one provided that they should be
born, that the world might not appear gloomy(7) with waste and
desolation. But, that they might be produced from the earth without the
office of parents, provision must have been made with great judgment;
and in the next place, that the moisture condensed from the earth might
be formed into the various figures of bodies; and also that, having
received from the vessels with which they were covered the power of
life and sensation, they might be poured forth, as it were, from the
womb of mothers, is a wonderful and indescribable(8) provision. But let
us suppose that this also happened by chance; the circumstances which
follow assuredly cannot be by chance,--that the earth should at once
flow with milk, and that the temperature of the atmosphere should be
equable. And if these things plainly happened, that the newly born
animals might have nourishment, or be free from danger, it must be that
some one provided these things by some divine counsel.
But who is able to make this provision except God?
Let us, however, see whether the circumstance itself which they assert
could have taken place, that men should be born from the earth. If any
one considers during how long a time and in what manner an infant is
reared, he will assuredly understand that those earth-born children
could not possibly have been reared without some one to bring them up.
For they must have lain for many months cast forth, until their sinews
were strengthened, so that they had power to move
themselves and to change their place, which can scarcely happen within
the space of one year. Now see whether an infant could have lain
through many months in the same manner and in the same place where it
was cast forth, without dying, overwhelmed and corrupted by that
moisture of the earth which it supplied for the sake of nourishment,
and by the excrements of its own body mixed together. Therefore it is
impossible but that it was reared by some one; unless, indeed, all
animals are born not in a tender con-
61
dition, but grown up: and it never came into their mind to say this.
Therefore the whole of that method is impossible and vain; if that can
be called method by which it is attempted that there shall be no
method. For he who says that all things are produced of their own
accord, and attributes nothing to divine providence, he assuredly does
not assert, but overthrows method. But if nothing can be done or
produced without design, it is plain that there is a divine providence,
to which that which is called design peculiarly belongs. Therefore God,
the Contriver of all things, made man. And even Cicero, though ignorant
of the sacred writings, saw this, who in his treatise on the Laws, in
the first book,(1) handed down the same thing as the prophets; and I
add his words: "This animal, foreseeing, sagacious, various, acute,
gifted with memory, full of method and design, which we call man, was
produced by the supreme Deity under remarkable circumstances; for this
alone of so many kinds and natures of animals, partakes of judgment and
reflection, when all other animals are destitute of them." Do you see
that the man, although far removed from the knowledge of the truth,
yet, inasmuch as he held the image of wisdom, understood that man could
not be produced except by God? But, however, there is need of divine(2)
testimony, lest that of man should be insufficient. The Sibyl testifies
that man is the work of God:--
"He who is the only God being the invincible
Creator, He Himself fixed(3) the figure of the form of men, He Himself
mixed the nature of all belonging to the generation of life."
The sacred writings contain statements to the same effect. Therefore
God discharged the office of a true father. He Himself formed the body;
He Himself infused the soul with which we breathe. Whatever we are, it
is altogether His work. In what manner He effected this He would have
taught us, if it were right for us to know; as He taught us other
things, which have conveyed to us the knowledge both of ancient error
and of true light.
CHAP. XIII.--WHY MAN IS OF TWO SEXES; WHAT IS HIS FIRST DEATH, AND WHAT
THE SECOND AND OF THE FAULT AND PUNISHMENT OF OUR FIRST PARENTS.
When, therefore, He had first formed the male after
His own likeness, then He also fashioned woman after the image of the
man himself, that the two by their union might be able to perpetuate
their race, and to fill the whole earth with a multitude. But in the
making of man himself
He concluded and completed the nature of those two materials which we
have spoken of as contrary to each other, fire and water. For
having made the body, He breathed into it a soul from the vital
source of His own Spirit, which is everlasting, that it might bear the
similitude of the world itself, which is composed of opposing elements.
For he(4) consists of soul and body, that is, as it were, of heaven and
earth: since the soul by which we live, has its origin, as it were, out
of heaven from God, the body out of the earth, of the dust of which we
have said that it was formed. Empedocles--whom you cannot tell whether
to reckon among poets or philosophers, for he wrote in verse respecting
the nature of things, as did Lucretius and Varro among the
Romans--determined that there were four elements, that is, fire, air,
water, and earth; perhaps following Trismegistus, who said that our
bodies were composed of these four elements by God, for he said that
they contained in themselves something of fire, something of air,
something of water, and something of earth, and yet that they
were neither fire, nor air, nor water, nor earth. And these things
indeed are not false; for the nature of earth is contained in the
flesh, that of moisture in the blood, that of air in the breath, that
of fire in the vital heat. But neither can the blood be separated from
the body, as moisture is from the earth; nor the vital heat from the
breath, as fire from the air: so that of all things only two elements
are found, the whole nature of which is included in the formation
of our body. Man, therefore, was made from different and opposite
substances, as the world itself was made from light and darkness, from
life and death; and he has admonished us that these two things contend
against each other in man: so that if the soul, which has its origin
from God, gains the mastery, it is immortal, and lives in perpetual
light; if, on the other hand, the body shall overpower the soul, and
subject it to its dominion, it is in everlasting darkness and death.(5)
And the force of this is not that it altogether annihilates(6) the
souls of the unrighteous, but subjects them to everlasting
punishment.(7)
We term that punishment the second death, which is
itself also perpetual, as also is immortality. We thus define the first
death: Death is the dissolution of the nature of living beings; or
thus: Death is the separation of body and
62
soul. But we thus define the second death: Death is the suffering of
eternal pain; or thus: Death is the condemnation of souls for
their deserts to eternal punishments. This does not extend
to the dumb cattle, whose spirits, not being composed of God,(1) but of
the common air, are dissolved by death. Therefore in this union of
heaven and earth, the image of which is developed(2) in man, those
things which belong to God occupy the higher part, namely the soul,
which has dominion over the body; but those which belong to the devil
occupy the lower(3) part, manifestly the body: for this, being earthly,
ought to be subject to the soul, as the earth is to heaven. For it is,
as it were, a vessel which this heavenly spirit may employ as a
temporary dwelling. The duties of both are--for the latter, which is
from heaven and from God, to command; but for the former, which is from
the earth and the devil, to obey. And this, indeed, did not escape the
notice of a dissolute man, Sallust,(4) who says: "But all our power
consists in the soul and body; we use the soul to command, the body
rather to obey." It had been well if he had lived in accordance with
his words; for he was a slave to the most degrading pleasures, and he
destroyed the efficacy of his sentiment by the depravity of his life.
But if the soul is fire, as we have shown, it ought to mount up to
heaven as fire, that it may not be extinguished; that is, it ought to
rise to the immortality which is in heaven. And as fire cannot burn and
be kept alive unless it be nourished(5) by some rich fuel(6) in which
it may have sustenance, so the fuel and food of the soul is
righteousness alone, by which it is nourished unto life. After these
things, God, having made man in the manner in which I have pointed out,
placed him in paradise,(7) that is, in a most fruitful and pleasant
garden, which He planted in the regions of the East with every kind of
wood and tree, that he might be nourished by their various fruits; and
being free from all labours.(8) might devote himself entirely to the
service of God his Father.
Then He gave to him fixed commands, by the
observance of which he might continue immortal; or if he transgressed
them, be punished with death. It was enjoined that he should not taste
of one tree only which was in the midst of the garden,(9) in which He
had placed the knowledge of good and evil. Then the accuser, envying
the works of God, applied all his deceits and artifices to beguile(10)
the man, that he might deprive him of immortality. And first he enticed
the woman by fraud to take the forbidden fruit, and through her
instrumentality he also persuaded the man himself to transgress the law
of God. Therefore, having obtained the knowledge of good and evil, he
began to be ashamed of his nakedness, and hid himself from the face of
God, which he was not before accustomed to do. Then God drove out the
man from the garden, having passed sentence upon the sinner, that he
might seek support for himself by labour. And He surrounded(11) the
garden itself with fire, to prevent the approach of the man until He
execute the last judgment on earth; and having removed death, recall
righteous men, His worshippers, to the same place; as the sacred
writers teach. and the Erythraean Sibyl, when she says: "But they who
honour the true God inherit everlasting life, themselves inhabiting
together paradise, the beautiful garden, for ever." But since
these are the last things,(12) we will treat of them in the last
part of this work. Now let us explain those which are first.
Death therefore followed man, according to the sentence of God,
which even the Sibyl teaches in her verse, saying:"Man made by the very
hands of God, whom the serpent treacherously beguiled that
he might come to the fate of death, and receive the
knowledge of good and evil." Thus the life of man became limited in
duration;(13) but still, however, long, inasmuch as it was extended to
a thousand(14) years. And when Varro was not ignorant of this, handed
down as it is in the sacred writings, and spread abroad by the
knowledge of all, he endeavoured to give reasons why the ancients were
supposed to have lived a thousand years. For he says that among the
Egyptians months are accounted(15) as years: so that the circuit of the
sun through the twelve signs of the zodiac does not make a year, but
the moon, which traverses that sign-bearing circle in the space of
thirty days; which argument is manifestly false. For no one then
exceeded the thousandth year. But now they who attain to the hundredth
year, which frequently happens,
63
undoubtedly live a thousand and two hundred months. And competent(1)
authorities report that men are accustomed to reach one hundred and
twenty years.(2) But because Varro did not know why or when the life of
man was shortened, he himself shortened it, since he knew that it was
possible for man to live a thousand and four hundred months.
CHAP. XIV.--OF NOAH THE INVENTOR OF WINE, WHO FIRST HAD KNOWLEDGE OF
THE STARS, AND OF THE ORIGIN OF FALSE RELIGIONS.
But afterwards God, when He saw the earth filled
with wickedness and crimes, determined to destroy mankind with a
deluge; but, however, for renewing the multitude, He chose one man,
who,(3) when all were corrupted, stood forth pre-eminent, as a
remarkable example of righteousness. He, when six hundred years old,
built an ark, as God had commanded him, in which he himself was saved,
together with his wife and three sons, and as many daughters-in-law,
when the water had covered all the loftiest mountains. Then when the
earth was dry, God, execrating the wickedness of the former age, that
the length of life might not again be a cause of meditating evils,
gradually diminished the age of man by each successive generation, and
placed a limit at a hundred and twenty years,(4) which it might not be
permitted to exceed. But he, when he went forth from the ark, as the
sacred writings inform us, diligently cultivated the earth, and planted
a vineyard with his own hand. From which circumstance they are refuted
who regard Bacchus as the author of wine. For he not only preceded
Bacchus, but also Saturn and Uranus, by many generations. And when he
had first taken the fruit from the vineyard, having become merry, he
drank even to intoxication, and lay naked. And when one of his sons,
whose name was Cham,(5) had seen this, he did not cover his father's
nakedness, but went out and told the circumstance to his brothers also.
But they, having taken a garment, entered with their faces turned
backwards, and covered their father.(6) And when their father became
aware of what had been done he disowned and sent away his son. But he
went into exile, and settled in a part of that land which is now called
Arabia; and that land was
called from him Chanaan, and his posterity Chanaanites. This was the
first nation which was ignorant of God, since its prince and founder
did not receive from his father the worship of God, being cursed by
him;(7) and thus he left to his descendants ignorance of the divine
nature.(8)
From this nation all the nearest people flowed as
the multitude increased. But the descendants of his father were called
Hebrews, among whom the religion of the true God was established.(9)
But from these also in after times, when their number was multiplied
exceedingly, since the mall extent of their settlements could not
contain them, then young men, either sent by their parents or of their
own accord, by the compulsion of poverty, leaving their own lands to
seek for themselves new settlements, were scattered in all directions,
and filled all the islands and the whole earth; and thus being torn
away from the stem of their sacred root, they established for
themselves at their own discretion new customs and institutions. But
they who occupied Egypt were the first of all who began to look up to
and adore the heavenly bodies. And because they did not shelter
themselves in houses on account of the quality of the atmosphere, and
the heaven is not overspread with any clouds in that country, they
observed the courses of the stars, and their obscurations,(10) while in
their frequent adorations they more carefully and freely beheld them.
Then afterwards, induced by certain prodigies, they invented monstrous
figures of animals, that they might worship them; the authors of which
we will presently disclose. But the others, who were scattered over the
earth, admiring the elements of the world, began to worship the heaven,
the sun, the earth, the sea, without any images and temples, and
offered sacrifices to them in the open air, until in process of time
they erected temples and statues to the most powerful kings, and
originated the practice of honouring them with victims and odours; and
thus wandering from the knowledge of God, they began to be heathens.
They err, therefore, who contend that the worship of the gods was from
the beginning of the world, and that heathenism was prior to the
religion of God: for they think that this was discovered afterwards,
because they are ignorant of the source and origin of the truth. Now
let us return to the beginning of the world.
64
CHAP. XV.--OF THE CORRUPTION OF ANGELS, AND THE TWO KINDS
OF DEMONS.
When, therefore, the number of men had begun to
increase, God in His forethought, lest the devil, to whom from the
beginning He had given power over the earth, should by his subtilty
either corrupt or destroy men, as he had done at first, sent angels for
the protection and improvement(1) of the human race; and inasmuch as He
had given these a free will, He enjoined them above all things not to
defile themselves with contamination from the earth, and thus lose the
dignity of their heavenly nature.(2) He plainly prohibited them from
doing that which He knew that they would do, that they might entertain
no hope of pardon. Therefore, while they abode among men, that most
deceitful ruler(3) of the earth, by his very association, gradually
enticed them to vices, and polluted them by intercourse with women.
Then, not being admitted into heaven on account of the sins into which
they had plunged themselves, they fell to the earth. Thus from angels
the devil makes them to become his satellites and attendants. But they
who were born from these, because they were neither angels nor men, but
bearing a kind of mixed(4) nature, were not admitted into hell, as
their fathers were not into heaven. Thus there came to be two kinds of
demons; one of heaven, the other of the earth. The latter are the
wicked(5) spirits, the authors of all the evils which are done, and the
same devil is their prince. Whence Trismegistus calls him the ruler of
the demons. But grammarians say that they are called demons, as though
demoenes,(6) that is, skilled and acquainted with matters: for they
think that these are gods. They are acquainted, indeed, with many
future events, but not all, since it is not permitted them entirely to
know the counsel of God; and therefore they are accustomed to
accommodate(7) their answers to ambiguous results. The poets both know
them to be demons, and so describe them. Hesiod thus speaks:--
"These are the demons according to the will of Zeus, Good, living on
the earth, the guardians of mortal men."
And this is said for this purpose, because God had sent them as
guardians to the human race; but they themselves also, though they are
the destroyers of men, yet wish themselves to appear as their
guardians, that they themselves may be worshipped, and God may not be
worshipped. The philosophers also discuss the subject of these beings.
For Plato attempted even to explain their natures in his "Banquet;" and
Socrates said that there was a demon continually about him, who had
become attached to him when a boy, by whose will and direction his life
was guided. The art also and power of the Magi altogether consists in
the influences(8) of these; invoked by whom they deceive the sight of
men with deceptive illusions,(9) so that they do not see those things
which exist, and think that they see those things which do not exist.
These contaminated and abandoned spirits, as I say, wander over the
whole earth, and contrive a solace for their own perdition by the
destruction of men. Therefore they fill every place with snares,
deceits, frauds, and errors; for they cling to individuals, and occupy
whole houses from door to door, and assume to themselves the name of
genii; for by this word they translate demons in the Latin language.
They consecrate these in their houses, to these they daily pour out(10)
libations of wine, and worship the wise demons as gods of the earth,
and as averters of those evils which they themselves cause and impose.
And these, since spirits are without substance(11) and not to be
grasped, insinuate themselves into the bodies of men; and secretly
working in their inward parts, they corrupt the health, hasten
diseases, terrify their souls with dreams, harass their minds with
phrenzies, that by these evils they may compel men to have recourse to
their aid.
CHAP. XVI.--THAT DEMONS HAVE NO POWER OVER THOSE WHO ARE ESTABLISHED IN
THE FAITH.
And the nature of all these deceits(12) is obscure to those who
are without the truth. For they think that those demons profit them
when they cease to injure, whereas they have no power except to
injure.(13) Some one may perchance say that they are therefore to be
worshipped, that they may not injure, since they have the power to
injure. They do indeed injure, but those only by whom they are feared,
whom the powerful and lofty hand of God does not protect, who are un-
65
initiated in the mystery(1) of truth. But they fear the righteous,(2)
that is, the worshippers of God, adjured by whose name they depart(3)
from the bodies of the possessed: for, being lashed by their words as
though by scourges, they not only confess themselves to be demons, but
even utter their own names--those which are adored in the
temples--which they generally do in the presence of their own
worshippers; not, it is plain, to the disgrace of religion, but(4) to
the disgrace of their own honour, because they cannot speak falsely to
God, by whom they are adjured, nor to the righteous, by whose voice
they are tortured. Therefore ofttimes having uttered the greatest
howlings, they cry out that they are beaten, and are on fire, and that
they are just on the point of coming forth: so much power has the
knowledge of God, and righteousness! Whom, therefore, can they injure,
except those whom they have in their own power? In short, Hermes
affirms that those who have known God are not only safe from the
attacks of demons, but that they are not even bound by fate. "The only
protection," he says, "is piety, for over a pious man neither evil
demon nor fate has any power: for God rescues the pious man from all
evil; for the one and only good thing among men is piety." And what
piety is, he testifies in another place, in these words: "For piety is
the knowledge of God." Asclepius also, his disciple, more fully
expressed the same sentiment in that finished discourse which he wrote
to the king. Each of them, in truth, affirms that the demons are the
enemies and harassers of men, and on this account Trismegistus calls
them wicked angels; so far was he from being ignorant that from
heavenly beings they were corrupted, and began to be earthly.
CHAP. XVII.--THAT ASTROLOGY, SOOTHSAYING, AND SIMILAR ARTS ARE THE
INVENTION OF DEMONS.
These were the inventors of astrology, and
soothsaying, and divination, and those productions which are called
oracles, and necromancy, and the art of magic, and whatever evil
practices besides these men exercise, either openly or in secret. Now
all these things are false of themselves, as the Erythraean Sibyl
testifies:--
"Since all these things are erroneous,
Which foolish men search after day by day."
But these same authorities by their countenance(5) cause it to be
believed that they are true. Thus they delude the credulity of men by
lying divination, because it is not expedient for them to lay open the
truth. These are they who taught men to make images and statues; who,
in order that they might turn away the minds of men from the worship of
the true God, cause the countenances of dead kings, fashioned and
adorned with exquisite beauty, to be erected and consecrated, and
assumed to themselves their names, as though they were assuming some
characters. But the magicians, and those whom the people truly call
enchanters,(6) when they practise their detestable arts, call upon them
by their true names, those heavenly names which are read in the sacred
writings. Moreover, these impure and wandering spirits, that they may
throw all things into confusion, and overspread the minds of men with
errors, interweave and mingle false things with true. For they
themselves feigned that there are many heavenly beings, and one king of
all, Jupiter; because there are many spirits of angels in heaven, and
one Parent and Lord of all, God. But they have concealed the truth
under false names, and withdrawn it from sight.
For God, as I have shown in the beginning,(7) does
not need a name, since He is alone; nor do the angels, inasmuch as they
are immortal, either suffer or wish themselves to be called gods: for
their one and only duty is to submit to the will of God, and not to do
anything at all except at His command. For we say that the world is so
governed by God, as a province is by its ruler; and no one would say
that his attendants(8) are his sharers in the administration of the
province, although business is carried on by their service. And yet
these can effect something contrary to the commands of the ruler,
through his ignorance; which is the result of man's condition. But that
guardian of the world and ruler of the universe, who knows all things,
from whose divine eyes nothing is concealed,(9) has alone with His Son
the power over all things; nor is there anything in the angels except
the necessity of obedience. Therefore they wish no honour to be paid to
them, since all their hononr is in God. But they who have revolted from
the service of God, because they are enemies of the truth, and
betrayers(10) of God attempt to claim for themselves the name and
worship of gods; not that they desire any hon-
66
our (for what honour is there to the lost?), nor that they may injure
God, who cannot be injured, but that they may injure men, whom they
strive to turn away from the worship and knowledge of the true Majesty,
that they may not be able to obtain immortality, which they themselves
have lost through their wickedness. Therefore they draw on darkness,
and overspread the truth with obscurity, that men may not know their
Lord and Father. And that they may easily entice them, they conceal
themselves in the temples, and are close at hand at all sacrifices; and
they often give prodigies, that men, astonished by them, may attach to
images a belief in their divine power and influence. Hence it is that
the stone was cut by the augur with a razor; that Juno of Veii answered
that she wished to remove to Rome; that Fortuna Muliebris(1) announced
the threatening danger; that the ship followed the hand of Claudia;
that Juno when plundered, and the Locrian Proserpine, and the Milesian
Ceres, punished the sacrilegious; that Hercules exacted vengeance from
Appius, and Jupiter from Atinius, and Minerva from Caesar. Hence it was
that the serpent sent for from Epidaurus freed the city of Rome from
pestilence. For the chief of the demons was himself carried thither in
his own form, without any dissembling; if indeed the ambassadors who
were sent for that purpose brought with them a serpent of immense size.
But they especially deceive in the case of oracles,
the juggleries of which the profane(2) cannot distinguish from the
truth; and therefore they imagine that commands,(3) and victories, and
wealth, and prosperous issues of affairs, are bestowed by them,--in
short, that the state has often been freed from imminent dangers by
their interposition;(4) which dangers they have both announced, and
when appeased with sacrifices, have averted. But all these things are
deceits. For since they have a presentiment(5) of the arrangements of
God, inasmuch as they have been His ministers, they interpose
themselves in these matters, that whatever things have been
accomplished or are in the course of accomplishment by God, they
themselves may especially appear to be doing or to have done; and as
often as any advantage is hanging over any people or city, according to
the purpose of God, either by prodigies, or dreams, or oracles, they
promise that they will bring it to pass, if temples, honours, and
sacrifices are given to them. And on the offering of these, when the
necessary(6) result comes to pass, they acquire for themselves the
greatest veneration. Hence temples are vowed, and new images
consecrated; herds of victims are slain; and when all these things are
done, yet the life and safety of those who have performed them are not
the less sacrificed. But as often as dangers threaten, they profess
that they are angry on account of some light and trifling cause; as
Juno was with Varro, because he had placed a beautiful boy on the
carriage(7) of Jupiter to guard the dress, and on this account the
Roman name was almost destroyed at Cannae. But if Juno feared a second
Ganymede, why did the Roman youth suffer punishment? Or if the gods
regard the leaders only, and neglect the rest of the multitude, why did
Varro alone escape who acted thus, and why was Paulus, who was
innocent,(8) slain? Assuredly nothing then happened to the Romans by
"the fates of the hostile Juno,"(9) when Hannibal by craft and valour
despatched two armies of the Roman people. For Juno did not venture
either to defend Carthage, where were her arms and chariot, or to
injure the Romans; for
"She had heard that sons of Troy
Were born her Carthage to destroy."(10)
But these are the delusions of those who, concealing themselves under
the names of the dead, lay snares for the living. Therefore, whether
the impending danger can be avoided, they wish it to appear that they
averted it, having been appeased; or if it cannot be avoided, they
contrive that it may appear to have happened through disregard(11) of
them. Thus they acquire to themselves authority and fear from men, who
are ignorant of them. By this subtilty and by these arts they have
caused the knowledge of the true and only God to fail(12) among all
nations. For, being destroyed by their own vices, they rage and use
violence that they may destroy others. Therefore these enemies of the
human race even devised human victims, to devour as many lives as
possible.
CHAP. XVIII.--OF THE PATIENCE AND VENGEANCE OF GOD, THE WORSHIP OF
DEMONS, AND FALSE RELIGIONS.
Some one will say, Why then does God permit these
things to be done, and not apply a remedy to such disastrous errors?
That evils may be at variance with good; that vices may be opposed to
virtues; that He may have some whom He may punish, and others whom He
67
may honour. For He has determined at the last times to pass judgment on
the living and the dead, concerning which judgment I shall speak in the
last book. He delays,(1) therefore, until the end of the times shall
come, when He may pour out His wrath with heavenly power and might, as
"Prophecies of pious seers
Ring terror in the 'wildered ears."(2)
But now He suffers men to err, and to be impious even towards Himself,
just, and mild, and patient as He is. For it is impossible that He in
whom is perfect excellence should not also be of perfect patience.
Whence some imagine, that God is altogether free from anger, because He
is not subject to affections, which are perturbations of the mind; for
every animal which is liable to affections and emotions is frail. But
this persuasion altogether takes away truth and religion. But let this
subject of discussing the anger of God be laid aside for the present;
because the matter is very copious, and to be more widely treated in a
work devoted to the subject. Whoever shall have worshipped and followed
these most wicked spirits, will neither enjoy heaven nor the light,
which are God's; but will fall into those things which we have spoken
of as being assigned in the distribution of things to the prince of the
evil ones himself,--namely, into darkness, and hell, and everlasting
punishment.
I have shown that the religious rites of the gods
are vain in a threefold manner: In the first place, because those
images which are worshipped are representations of men who are dead;
and that is a wrong and inconsistent thing, that the image of a man
should be worshipped by the image of God, for that which worships is
lower and weaker than that which is worshipped: then that it is an
inexpiable crime to desert the living in order that you may serve
memorials of the dead, who can neither give life nor light to any one,
for they are themselves without it: and that there is no other God but
one, to whose judgment and power every soul is subject. In the second
place, that the sacred images themselves, to which most senseless men
do service, are destitute of all perception, since they are earth. But
who cannot understand that it is unlawful for an upright animal to bend
itself that it may adore the earth? which is placed beneath our feet
for this purpose, that it may be trodden. upon, and not adored by us,
who have been
raised from it, and have received an elevated position beyond the other
living creatures, that we may not turn ourselves again downward,
nor cast this heavenly countenance to the earth, but may direct
our eyes to that quarter to which the condition of their nature has
directed, and that we may adore and worship nothing except the single
deity of our only Creator and Father, who made man of an erect figure,
that we may know that we are called forth to high and heavenly things.
In the third place, because the spirits which preside over the
religious rites themselves, being condemned and cast off by God,
wallow(3) over the earth, who not only are unable to afford any
advantage to their worshippers, since the power of all things is in the
hands of one alone, but even destroy them with deadly attractions and
errors; since this is their daily business, to involve men in darkness,
that the true God may not be sought by them. Therefore they are not to
be worshipped, because they lie under the sentence of God. For it is a
very great crime to devote(4) one's self to the power of those whom, if
you follow righteousness, you are able to excel in power, and to drive
out and put to flight by adjuration of the divine name. But if it
appears that these religious rites are vain in so many ways as I have
shown, it is manifest that those who either make prayers to the
dead,(5) or venerate the earth, or make over(6) their souls to unclean
spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer
punishment for their impiety and guilt, who, rebelling against God, the
Father of the human race, have undertaken inexpiable rites, and
violated every sacred law.
CHAP. XIX.--OF THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES AND
EARTHLY OBJECTS.
Whoever, therefore, is anxious to observe the
obligations to which man is liable, and to maintain a regard for his
nature, let him raise himself from the ground, and, with mind lifted
up, let him direct his eyes to heaven: let him not seek God under his
feet, nor dig up from his footprints an object of veneration, for
whatever lies beneath man must necessarily be inferior to man; but let
him seek it aloft, let him seek it in the highest place: for nothing
can be greater than man, except that which is above man. But God is
greater than man: therefore He is above, and
68
not below; nor is He to be sought in the lowest, but rather in the
highest region. Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion
wherever there is an image.(1) For if religion consists of divine
things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it
follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing
heavenly in that which is made from the earth. And this, indeed, may be
plain to a wise man from the very name.(2) For whatever is an
imitation, that must of necessity be false; nor can anything receive
the name of a true object which counterfeits the truth by deception and
imitation. But if all imitation is not particularly a serious matter,
but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion in images,
but a mimicry of religion. That which is true is therefore to be
preferred to all things which are false; earthly things are to be
trampled upon, that we may obtain heavenly things. For this is the
state of the case, that whosoever shall prostrate his soul, which has
its origin from heaven, to the shades(3) beneath, and the lowest
things, must fall to that place to which he has cast himself. Therefore
he ought to be mindful of his nature and condition, and always to
strive and aim at things above. And whoever shall do this, he will be
judged altogether wise, he just, he a man: he, in short, will be judged
worthy of heaven whom his Parent will recognise not as abject, nor cast
down to the earth after the manner of the beasts,(4) but rather
standing and upright as He made him.
CHAP. XX.--OF PHILOSOPHY AND THE TRUTH.
A great and difficult portion of the work which I
have undertaken, unless I am deceived, has been completed; and the
majesty of heaven supplying the power of speaking, we have driven away
inveterate errors. But now a greater and more difficult contest with
philosophers is proposed to us, the height of whose learning and
eloquence, as some massive structure, is opposed to me. For as in the
former(5) case we were oppressed by a multitude, and almost by the
universal agreement of all nations, so in this subject we are oppressed
by the authority of men excelling in every kind of praise. But who can
be ignorant that there is more weight in a smaller number of learned
men than in a greater number of ignorant persons?(6) But we must not
despair that, under the guidance of God and the truth, these also may
be turned aside from their opinion; nor do I think that they will be so
obstinate as to deny that they behold with sound and open eyes the sun
as he shines in his brilliancy. Only let that be true which they
themselves are accustomed to profess, that they are possessed with the
desire of investigation, and I shall assuredly succeed in causing them
to believe that the truth which they have long sought for has been at
length found, and to confess that it could not have been found by the
abilities of man.
69
THE DIVINE INSTITUTES
BOOK III.
OF THE FALSE WISDOM OF PHILOSOPHERS.
CHAP. I.--A COMPARISON OF THE TRUTH WITH ELOQUENCE: WHY THE
PHILOSOPHERS DID NOT ATTAIN TO IT. OF THE SIMPLE STYLE OF THE
SCRIPTURES.
SINCE. it is supposed that the truth still lies
hidden in obscurity--either through the error and ignorance of the
common people, who are the slaves of various and foolish superstitions,
or through the philosophers, who by the perverseness of their minds
confuse rather than throw light upon it--I could wish that the power of
eloquence had fallen to my lot, though not such as it was in Marcus
Tullius, for that was extraordinary and admirable, but in some degree
approaching it;(1) that, being supported as much by the strength of
talent as it has weight by its own force, the truth might at length
come forth, and having dispelled and refuted public errors, and the
errors of those who are considered wise, might introduce among the
human race a brilliant light. And I could wish that this were so, for
two reasons: either that men might more readily believe the truth when
adorned with embellishments, since they even believe falsehood, being
captivated by the adornment of speech and the enticement of
words; or, at all events, that the philosophers themselves might
be overpowered by us, most of all by their own arms, in which
they are accustomed to pride themselves and to place
confidence.
But since God has willed this to be the nature of the case, that simple
and undisguised truth should be more clear, because it has sufficient
ornament of itself, and on this account it is corrupted when
embellished(2) with adornings from without, but that falsehood
should please by means of a splendour not its own, because being
corrupt of itself it vanishes and melts away, unless it is set off(3)
and polished with decoration sought
from another source; I bear it with equanimity that a moderate degree
of talent has been granted to me. But it is not in reliance upon
eloquence, but upon the truth, that I have undertaken this work,--a
work, perhaps, too great to be sustained by my strength; which,
however, even if I should fail, the truth itself will complete, with
the assistance of God, whose office this is. For when I know that the
greatest orators have often been overcome by pleaders of moderate
ability, because the power of truth is so great that it defends itself
even in small things by its own clearness: why should I imagine that it
will be overwhelmed in a cause of the greatest importance by men who
are ingenious and eloquent, as I admit, but who speak false things; and
not that it should appear bright and illustrious, if not by our speech,
which is very feeble, and flows from a slight fountain, but by its own
light? Nor, if there have been philosophers worthy of admiration on
account of their literary erudition, should I also yield to them the
knowledge and learning of the truth, which no one can attain to by
reflection or disputation. Nor do I now disparage the pursuit of those
who wished to know the truth, because God has made the nature of man
most desirous of arriving at the truth; but I assert and maintain this
against them, that the effect did not follow their honest and
well-directed will, because they neither knew what was true in itself,
nor how, nor where, nor with what mind it is to be sought. And thus,
while they desire to remedy the errors of men, they have become
entangled in snares and the greatest errors. I have therefore been led
to this task of refuting philosophy by the very order of the subject
which I have undertaken.
For since all error arises either from false
religion or from wisdom,(4) in refuting error it is necessary to
overthrow both. For inasmuch as
70
it has been handed down to us in the sacred writings that the thoughts
of philosophers are foolish, this very thing iS to be proved by fact
and by arguments, that no one, induced by the honourable name of
wisdom, or deceived by the splendour of empty eloquence, may prefer to
give credence to human rather than to divine things. Which things,
indeed, are related in a concise and simple manner. For it was not
befitting that, when God was speaking to man, He should confirm His
words by arguments, as though He would not otherwise(1) be regarded
with confidence: but, as it was right, He spoke as the mighty Judge of
all things, to whom it belongs not to argue, but to pronounce sentence.
He Himself, as God, is truth. But we, since we have divine testimony
for everything, will assuredly show by how much surer arguments truth
may be defended, when even false things are so defended that they are
accustomed to appear true. Wherefore there is no reason why we should
give so much honour to philosophers as to fear their eloquence. For
they might speak well as men of learning; but they could not speak
truly, because they had not learned the truth from Him in whose power
it was. Nor, indeed, shall we effect anything great in convicting them
of ignorance, which they themselves very often confess. Since they are
not believed in that one point alone in which alone they ought to have
been believed, I will endeavour to show that they never spoke so truly
as when they uttered their opinion respecting their own ignorance.
CHAP. II.--OF PHILOSOPHY, AND HOW VAIN WAS ITS OCCUPATION IN SETTING
FORTH THE TRUTH.
Now, since the falsehood of superstitions(2) has
been shown in the two former books, and the origin itself of the whole
error has been set forth, it is the business of this book to show the
emptiness and falsehood of philosophy also, that, all error being
removed, the truth may be brought to light and become manifest. Let us
begin, therefore, from the common name of philosophy, that when the
head itself is destroyed, an easier approach may be open to us for
demolishing the whole body; if indeed that can be called a body, the
parts and members of which are at variance with one another, and are
not united together by any connecting link,(3) but, as it were,
dispersed and scattered, appear to palpitate rather than to live.
Philosophy is (as the name indicates, and they themselves define it)
the love of wisdom.
By what argument, then, can I prove that philosophy is not wisdom,
rather than by that derived from the meaning of the name itself? For he
who devotes himself to wisdom is manifestly not yet wise, but devotes
himself to the subject that he may be wise. In the other arts it
appears what this devotedness effects, and to what it tends: for when
any one by learning has attained to these, he is now called, not a
devoted follower of the profession, but an artificer. But it is said it
was on account of modesty that they called themselves devoted to
wisdom, and not wise. Nay, in truth, Pythagoras, who first invented
this name, since he had a little more wisdom than those of early times,
who regarded themselves as wise, understood that it was impossible by
any human study to attain to wisdom, and therefore that a perfect name
ought not to be applied to an incomprehensible and imperfect subject.
And, therefore, when he was asked what was his profession,(4) he
answered that he was a philosopher, that is, a searcher after wisdom.
If, therefore, philosophy searches after wisdom, it is not wisdom
itself, because it must of necessity be one thing which searches, and
another which is searched for; nor is the searching itself correct,
because it can find nothing.
But I am not prepared to concede even that
philosophers are devoted to the pursuit of wisdom, because by that
pursuit there is no attaining to wisdom. For if the power of finding
the truth were connected(5) with this pursuit, and if this pursuit were
a kind of road to wisdom, it would at length be found. But since so
much time and talent have been wasted in the search for it, and it has
not yet been gained, it is plain that there is no wisdom there.
Therefore they who apply themselves to philosophy do not devote
themselves to the pursuit of wisdom; but they themselves imagine that
they do so, because they know not where that is which they are
searching for, or of what character it is. Whether, therefore, they
devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom or not, they are not wise,
because that can never be discovered which is either sought in an
improper manner, or not sought at all. Let us look to this very thing,
whether it is possible for anything to be discovered by this kind of
pursuit, or nothing.
CHAP. III.--OF WHAT SUBJECTS PHILOSOPHY CONSISTS, AND WHO WAS THE CHIEF
FOUNDER OF THE ACADEMIC SECT.
Philosophy appears to consist of two subjects,
knowledge and conjecture, and of nothing more. Knowledge cannot come
from the understanding, nor be apprehended by thought; because
71
to have knowledge in oneself as a peculiar property does not belong to
man, but to God. But the nature of mortals does not receive knowledge,
except that which comes from without. For on this account the divine
intelligence has opened the eyes and ears and other senses in the body,
that by these entrances knowledge might flow through to the mind. For
to investigate or wish to know the causes of natural things,--whether
the sun is as great as it appears to be, or is many times greater than
the whole of this earth; also whether the moon be spherical or concave;
and whether the stars are fixed to the heaven, or are borne with free
course through the air; of what magnitude the heaven itself is, of what
material it is composed; whether it is at rest and immoveable, or is
turned round with incredible swiftness; how great is the thickness of
the earth, or on what foundations it is poised and suspended,--to wish
to comprehend these things, I say, by disputation and conjectures, is
as though we should wish to discuss what we may suppose to be the
character of a city in some very remote country, which we have never
seen, and of which we have heard nothing more than the name. If we
should claim to ourselves knowledge in a matter of this kind, which
cannot be known, should we not appear to be mad, in venturing to affirm
that in which we may be refuted? How much more are they to be judged
mad and senseless, who imagine that they know natural things, which
cannot be known by man! Rightly therefore did Socrates, and the
Academics(1) who followed him, take away knowledge, which is not the
part of a disputant, but of a diviner. It remains that there is in
philosophy conjecture only; for that from which knowledge is absent, is
entirely occupied by conjecture. For every one conjectures that of
which he is ignorant. But they who discuss natural subjects, conjecture
that they are as they discuss them. Therefore they do not know the
truth, because knowledge is concerned with that which is certain,
conjecture with the uncertain.
Let us return to the example before mentioned. Come,
let us conjecture about the state and character of that city which is
unknown to us in all respects except in name. It is probable that it is
situated on a plain, with walls of stone, lofty buildings, many
streets, magnificent and highly adorned temples. Let us describe, if
you please, the customs and deportment of the citizens. But when we
shall have described these, another will make opposite statements;
and when he also shall have concluded, a third will arise, and others
after him; and they will make very different conjectures to those of
ours. Which therefore of all is more true? Perhaps none of them. But
all things have been mentioned which the nature of the circumstances
admits, so that some one of them must necessarily be true. But it will
not be known who has spoken the truth. It may possibly be that all have
in some degree erred in their description, and that all have in some
degree attained to the truth. Therefore we are foolish if we seek this
by disputation; for some one may present himself who may deride our
conjectures, and esteem us as mad, since we wish to conjecture the
character of that which we do not know. But it is unnecessary to go in
quest of remote cases, from which perhaps no one may come to refute us.
Come, let us conjecture what is now going on in the forum, what in the
senate-house. That also is too distant. Let us say what is taking place
with the interposition of a single wall;(2) no one can know this but he
who has heard or seen it. No one therefore ventures to say this,
because he will immediately be refuted not by words, but by the
presence of the fact itself. But this is the very thing which
philosophers do, who discuss what is taking place in heaven, but think
that they do that with impunity, because there is no one to refute
their errors. But if they were to think that some one was about to
descend who would prove them to be mad and false, they would never
discuss those subjects at all which they cannot possibly know. Nor,
however, is their shamelessness and audacity to be regarded as more
successful because they are not refuted; for God refutes them to whom
alone the truth is known, although He may seem to connive at
their conduct, and He reckons such wisdom of men as the greatest folly.
CHAP.IV.--THAT KNOWLEDGE IS TAKEN AWAY BY SOCRATES, AND CONJECTURE BY
ZENO.
Zeno and the Stoics, then, were right in repudiating conjecture. For to
conjecture that you know that which you do not know, is not the part of
a wise, but rather of a rash and foolish man. Therefore if nothing can
be known, as Socrates taught, or ought to be conjectured, as Zeno
taught, philosophy is entirely removed. Why should I say that it is not
only overthrown by these two, who were the chiefs of philosophy, but by
all, so that it now appears to have been long ago destroyed by its own
arms? Philosophy has been divided into many sects; and they all
entertain various sentiments. In which do we place the truth? It
certainly cannot be in
72
all. Let us point out some one; it follows that all the others will be
without wisdom. Let us pass through them separately; in the same
manner, whatever we shall give to one we shall take away from the
others. For each particular sect overturns all others, to confirm
itself and its own doctrines: nor does it allow wisdom to any other,
lest it should confess that it is itself foolish; but as it takes away
others, so is it taken away itself by all others. For they are
nevertheless philosophers who accuse it of folly. Whatever sect you
shall praise and pronounce true, that is censured by philosophers as
false. Shall we therefore believe one which praises itself and its
doctrine, or the many which blame the ignorance of each other? That
must of necessity be better which is held by great numbers, than that
which is held by one only. For no one can rightly judge concerning
himself, as the renowned poet testifies;(1) for the nature of men is so
arranged, that they see and distinguish the affairs of others better
than their own. Since, therefore, all things are uncertain, we must
either believe all or none: if we are to believe no one, then the wise
have no existence, because while they separately affirm different
things they think themselves wise; if all, it is equally true that
there are no wise men, because all deny the wisdom of each
individually. Therefore all are in this manner destroyed; and as those
fabled sparti(2) of the poets, so these men mutually slay one another,
so that no one remains of all; which happens on this account, because
they have a sword, but have no shield. If, therefore, the sects
individually are convicted of folly by the judgment of many sects, it
follows that all are found to be vain and empty; and thus philosophy
consumes and destroys itself. And since Arcesilas the founder of the
Academy understood this, he collected together the mutual censures of
all, and the confession of ignorance made by distinguished
philosophers, and armed himself against all. Thus he established a new
philosophy of not philosophizing. From this founder, therefore, there
began to be two kinds of philosophy: one the old one, which claims to
itself knowledge; the other a new one, opposed to the former, and which
detracts from it. Between these two kinds of philosophy I see that
there is disagreement, and as it were civil war. On which side shall we
place wisdom, which cannot be torn asunder?(3) If the nature of things
can be known, this troop of recruits will perish; if it cannot, the
veterans will be destroyed: if they shall be equal, nevertheless
philosophy, the guide of all, will still perish, because it is divided;
for nothing can be opposed to itself without its own destruction. But
if, as I have shown, there can be no inner and peculiar knowledge in
man on account of the frailty of the human condition, the party of
Arcesilas prevails. But not even will this stand firm, because it
cannot be the case that nothing at all is known.
CHAP. V.--THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF
MANY THINGS IS NECESSARY.
For there are many things which nature itself, and
frequent use, and the necessity of life, compel us to know. Accordingly
you must perish, unless you know what things are useful for life, in
order that you may seek them; and what are dangerous, that you may shun
and avoid them. Moreover, there are many things which experience finds
out. For the various courses of the sun and moon, and the motions of
the stars, and the computation of times, have been discovered, and the
nature of bodies, and the strength of herbs by students of medicine,
and by the cultivators of the land the nature of soils, and signs of
future rains and tempests have been collected. In short, there is no
art which is not dependent on knowledge. Therefore Arcesilas
ought, if he had any wisdom, to have distinguished the things which
were capable of being known, and those which were incapable. But if he
had done this, he would have reduced himself to the common herd. For
the common people have sometimes more wisdom, because they are only so
far wise as is necessary. And if you inquire of them whether they know
anything or nothing, they will say that they know the things which they
know, and will confess that they are ignorant of what they are
ignorant. He was right, therefore, in taking away the systems of
others, but he was not right in laying the foundations of his own. For
ignorance of all things cannot be wisdom, the peculiar property of
which is knowledge. And thus, when he overcame the philosophers, and
taught that they knew nothing, he himself also lost the name of
philosopher, because his system is to know nothing. For he who blames
others because they are ignorant, ought himself to have knowledge; but
when he knows nothing, what perverseness or what insolence it is, to
constitute himself a philosopher on account of that very thing for
which he takes away the others! For it is in their power to answer
thus: If you convict us of knowing nothing, and therefore of being
unwise because we know nothing, does it follow that you are not wise,
because you confess that you know nothing? What progress, therefore,
did Arcesilas make, except that, having despatched all the
philosophers, he pierced himself also with the same sword?
73
CHAP. VI.--OF WISDOM, AND THE ACADEMICS, AND NATURAL
PHILOSOPHY.
Does wisdom therefore nowhere exist? Yes, indeed, it
was amongst them, but no one saw it. Some thought that all things could
be known: these were manifestly not wise. Others thought that nothing
could be known; nor indeed were these wise: the former, because they
attributed too much to man; the latter, because they attributed too
little. A limit was wanting to each on either side. Where, then, is
wisdom? It consists in thinking neither that you know all things, which
is the property of God; nor that you are ignorant of all things, which
is the part of a beast. For it is something of a middle character which
belongs to man, that is, knowledge united and combined with ignorance.
Knowledge in us is from the soul, which has its origin from heaven;
ignorance from the body, which is from the earth: whence we have
something in common with God, and with the animal creation. Thus, since
we are composed of these two elements, the one of which is endowed with
light, the other with darkness, a part of knowledge is given to us, and
a part of ignorance. Over this bridge, so to speak, we may pass without
any danger of falling; for all those who have inclined to either side,
either towards the left hand or the right, have fallen. But I will say
how each part has erred. The Academics argued from obscure subjects,
against the natural philosophers, that there was no knowledge; and
satisfied with the examples of a few incomprehensible subjects, they
embraced ignorance as though they had taken away the whole of
knowledge, because they had taken it away in part. But natural
philosophers, on the other hand, derived their argument from those
things which are open, and inferred that all things could be known,
and, satisfied with things which were manifest, retained knowledge; as
if they had defended it altogether, because they had defended it in
part. And thus neither the one saw what was clear, nor the others what
was obscure; but each party, while they contended with the greatest
ardour either to retain or to take away knowledge only, did not see
that there would be placed in the middle that which might guide them to
wisdom.
But Arcesilas, who teaches that there is no
knowledge,(1) when he was detracting from Zeno, the chief of the
Stoics, that he might altogether overthrow philosophy on the authority
of Socrates, undertook this opinion to affirm that nothing could be
known. And thus he disproved the judgment of the philosophers, who had
thought that the truth was drawn forth,(2) and
found out by their talents,--namely, because that wisdom was mortal,
and, having been instituted a few ages before, had now attained to its
greatest increase, so that it was now necessarily growing old and
perishing, the Academy(3) suddenly arose, the old age, as it were, of
philosophy, which might despatch it now withering. And Arcesilas
rightly saw that they are arrogant, or rather foolish, who imagine that
the knowledge of the truth can be arrived at by conjecture. But no one
can refute one speaking falsely, unless he who shall have previously
known what is true; but Arcesilas, endeavouring to do this without a
knowledge of the truth, introduced a kind of philosophy which we may
call unstable or inconstant.(4) For, that nothing may be known, it is
necessary that something be known. For if you know nothing at all, the
very knowledge that nothing can be known will be taken away. Therefore
he who pronounces as a sentiment that nothing is known,
professes, as it were, some conclusion already arrived at and known:
therefore it is possible for something to be known.
Of a similar character to this is that which is
accustomed to be proposed in the schools as an example of the kind of
fallacy called asystaton; that some one had dreamt that he should not
believe dreams. For if he did believe them, then it follows that he
ought not to believe them. But if he did not believe them, then
it follows that he ought to believe them. Thus, if nothing can be
known, it is necessary that this fact must be known, that nothing is
known. But if it is known that nothing can be known, the statement that
nothing can be known must as a consequence be false. Thus there is
introduced a tenet opposed to itself, and destructive of itself. But
the evasive(5) man wished to take away learning from the other
philosophers, that he might conceal it at his home. For truly he is not
for taking it from himself who affirms anything that he may take it
from others: but he does not succeed; for it shows itself, and betrays
its plunderer. How much more wisely and truly he would act, if he
should make an exception, and say that the causes and systems of
heavenly things only, or natural things, because they are hidden,
cannot be known, for there is no one to teach them; and ought not to be
inquired into. for they cannot be found out by inquiry! For if he
had brought forward this exception, he would both have admonished the
natural philosophers not to search into those things which exceeded the
limit of human reflection; and would have freed himself from the
ill-will arising from calumny, and would certainly
74
have left us something to follow. But now, since he has drawn us back
from following others, that we may not wish to know more than we are
capable of knowing, he has no less drawn us back from himself also. For
who would wish to labour lest he should know anything? or to undertake
learning of this kind that he may even lose ordinary knowledge? For if
this learning exists, it must necessarily consist of knowledge; if it
does not exist, who is so foolish as to think that that is worthy of
being learned, in which either nothing is learned, or something is even
unlearned? Wherefore, if all things cannot be known, as the natural
philosophers thought, nor nothing, as the Academics taught, philosophy
is altogether extinguished.
CHAP. VII.--OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, AND THE CHIEF
GOOD.
Let us now pass to the other part of philosophy,
which they themselves call moral, in which is contained the method of
the whole of philosophy, since in natural philosophy there is only
delight, in this there is utility also. And since it is more dangerous
to commit a fault in arranging the condition of life and in forming the
character, greater diligence must be used, that we may know how we
ought to live. For in the former subject(1) some indulgence may be
granted: for whether they say anything, they bestow no advantage; or if
they foolishly rave, they do no injury. But in this subject there is no
room for difference of opinion, none for error. All must entertain the
same sentiments, and philosophy itself must give instructions as it
were with one mouth; because if any error shall be committed, life is
altogether overthrown. In that former part, as there is less danger, so
there is more difficulty; because the obscurity of the subject compels
us to entertain different and various opinions. But in this, as there
is more danger, so there is less difficulty; because the very use of
the subjects and daily experiments are able to teach what is truer and
better. Let us see, therefore, whether they agree, or what assistance
they give us for the better guidance of life. It is not necessary to
enlarge on every point; let us select one, and especially that which is
the chief and principal thing, in which the whole of wisdom centres and
depends.(2) Epicurus deems that the chief good consists in pleasure of
mind, Aristippus in pleasure of the body. Callipho and Dinomachus
united virtue with pleasure, Diodorus with the privation of pain,
Hieronymus placed the chief good in the absence of pain; the
Peripatetics, again, in the goods of the mind, the body, and fortune.
The chief good of Herillus is knowledge; that of Zeno, to live
agreeably to nature; that of certain Stoics, to follow virtue.
Aristotle placed the chief good in integrity and virtue. These are the
sentiments of nearly all. In such a difference of opinions, whom do we
follow? whom do we believe? All are of equal authority. If we are able
to select that which is better, it follows that philosophy is not
necessary for us; because we are already wise, inasmuch as we judge
respecting the opinions of the wise. But since we come for the sake of
learning wisdom, how can we judge, who have not yet begun to be wise?
especially when the Academic is close at hand, to draw us back by the
cloak, and forbid us to believe any one, without bringing forward that
which we may follow.
CHAP. VIII.--OF THE CHIEF GOOD, AND THE PLEASURES OF THE SOUL AND BODY,
AND OF VIRTUE.
What then remains, but that we leave raving and
obstinate wranglers, and come to the judge, who is in truth the giver
of simple and calm wisdom? which is able not only to mould us, and lead
us into the way, but also to pass an opinion on the controversies of
those men. This teaches us what is the true and highest good of man;
but before I begin to speak on this subject, all those opinions must be
refuted, that it may appear that no one of those philosophers was wise.
Since the inquiry is respecting the duty of man, the chief good of the
chief animal ought to be placed in that which it cannot have in common
with the other animals. But as teeth are the peculiar property of wild
beasts, horns of cattle, and wings of birds, so something peculiar to
himself ought to be attributed to man, without which he would lose the
fixed(3) order of his condition. For that which is given to all for the
purpose of life or generation, is indeed a natural good; but still it
is not the greatest, unless it be peculiar to each class. Therefore he
was not a wise man who believed that pleasure of the mind is the chief
good, since that, whether it be freedom from anxiety or joy, is common
to all. I do not consider Aristippus even worthy of an answer; for
since he is always rushing into pleasures of the body, and is only the
slave of sensual indulgences, no one can regard him as a man: for he
lived in such a manner that there was no difference between him and a
brute, except this only, that he had the faculty of speech. But if the
power of speaking were given to the ass, or the dog, or swine, and you
were to inquire from these why they so furiously pursue the females,
that they can scarcely be separated from them, and even neglect their
food and I drink; why they either drive away other males,
75
or do not abstain from the pursuit even when vanquished, but often,
when bruised by stronger animals, they are more determined in their
pursuit; why they dread neither rain nor cold; why they undertake
labour, and do not shrink from danger;--what other answer will they
give, but that the chief good is bodily pleasure?--that they eagerly
seek it, in order that they may be affected with the most agreeable
sensations; and that these are of so much importance, that, for the
sake of attaining them, they imagine that no labour, nor wounds, nor
death itself, ought to be refused by them? Shall we then seek precepts
of living from these men, who have no other feelings than those of the
irrational creatures?
The Cyrenaics say that virtue itself is to be
praised on this account, because it is productive of pleasure. True,
says the filthy dog, or the swine wallowing in the mire.(1) For it is
on this account that I contend with my adversary with the utmost
exertion of strength, that my valour may procure for me pleasure; of
which I must necessarily be deprived if I shall come off vanquished.
Shall we therefore learn wisdom from these men, who differ from cattle
and the brutes, not in feeling, but in language? To regard the absence
of pain as the chief good, is not indeed the part of Peripatetic and
Stoic, but of clinical philosophers. For who would not imagine that the
discussion was carried on by those who were ill, and under the
influence of some pain? What is so ridiculous, as to esteem that the
chief good which the physician is able to give? We must therefore feel
pain in order that we may enjoy good; and that, too, severely and
frequently, that afterwards the absence of pain may be attended with
greater pleasure. He is therefore most wretched who has never felt
pain, because he is without that which is good; whereas we used to
regard him as most happy, because he was without evil. He was not far
distant from this folly, who said that the entire absence of pain was
the chief good. For, besides the fact that every animal avoids pain,
who can bestow upon himself that good, towards the obtaining of which
we can do no more than wish? But the chief good cannot make any one
happy, unless it shall be always in his power; and it is not virtue,
nor learning, nor labour, which affords this to man, but nature herself
bestows it upon all living creatures. They who joined pleasure with
virtuous principle, wished to avoid this common blending together of
all, but they made a contradictory kind of good; since he who is
abandoned to pleasure must of necessity be destitute of virtuous
principle, and he who aims at principle must be destitute of pleasure.
The chief good of the Peripatetics may possibly
appear excessive, various, and--excepting those goods which belong to
the mind, and what they are is a great subject of dispute--common to
man with the beasts. For goods belonging to the body--that is, safety,
freedom from pain, health--are no less necessary for dumb creatures
than for man; and I know not if they are not more necessary for them,
because man can be relieved by remedies and services, the dumb animals
cannot. The same is true of those which they call the goods of fortune;
for as man has need of resources for the support of life, so have
they(2) need of prey and pasture. Thus, by introducing a good which is
not within the power of man, they made man altogether subject to the
power of another. Let us also hear Zeno, for he at times dreams of
virtue. The chief good, he says, is to live in accordance with nature.
Therefore we must live after the manner of the brutes. For in these are
found all the things which ought to be absent from man: they are eager
for pleasures, they fear, they deceive, they lie in wait, they kill;
and that which is especially to the point, they have no knowledge of
God. Why, therefore, does he teach me to live according to nature,
which is of itself prone to a worse course, and under the influence of
some more soothing blandishments plunges headlong into vices? Or if he
says that the nature of brutes is different from the nature of man,
because man is born to virtue, he says something to the purpose; but,
however, it will not be a definition of the chief good, because there
is no animal which does not live in accordance with its nature.
He who made knowledge the chief good, gave something
peculiar to man; but men desire I knowledge for the sake of something
else, and not for its own sake. For who is contented with knowing,
without seeking some advantage from his knowledge? The arts are learned
for the purpose of being put into exercise; but they are exercised
either for the support of life, or pleasure, or for glory. That,
therefore, is not the chief good which is not sought for on its own
account. What difference, therefore, does it make, whether we consider
knowledge to be the chief good, or those very things which knowledge
produces from itself, that is, means of subsistence, glory, pleasure?
And these things are not peculiar to man, and therefore they are not
the chief goods; for the desire of pleasure and of food does not exist
in man alone, but also in the brutes. How is it with regard to the
desire of glory? Is it not discovered in horses, since they exult in
victory, and are grieved when vanquished? "So great is their love of
praises, so great is their eagerness for victory."(3) Nor with-
76
out reason does that most excellent poet say that we must try "what
grief they feel when overcome, and how they rejoice in victory." But if
those things which knowledge produces are common to man with other
animals, it follows that knowledge is not the chief good. Moreover, it
is no slight fault of this definition that bare knowledge is set forth.
For all will begin to appear happy who shall have the knowledge of any
art, even those who shall know mischievous subjects; so that he who
shall have learned to mix poisons, is as happy as he who has learned to
apply remedies. I ask, therefore, to what subject knowledge is to be
referred. If to the causes of natural things, what happiness will be
proposed to me, if I shall know the sources of the Nile, or the vain
dreams of the natural philosophers respecting the heaven? Why should I
mention that on these subjects there is no knowledge, but mere
conjecture, which varies according to the abilities of men? It only
remains that the knowledge of good and evil things is the chief good.
Why, then, did he call knowledge the chief good more than wisdom, when
both words have the same signification and meaning? But no one has yet
said that the chief good is wisdom, though this might more properly
have been said. For knowledge is insufficient for the undertaking of
that which is good and avoiding that which is evil, unless virtue also
is added. For many of the philosophers, though they discussed the
nature of good and evil things, yet from the compulsion of nature lived
in a manner different from their discourse, because they were without
virtue. But virtue united with knowledge is wisdom.
It remains that we refute those also who judged
virtue itself to be the chief good, and Marcus Tullius was also of this
opinion; and in this they were very inconsiderate.(1) For virtue itself
is not the chief good, but it is the contriver and mother of the chief
good; for this cannot be attained without virtue. Each point is easily
understood. For I ask whether they imagine that it is easy to arrive at
that distinguished good, or that it is reached only with difficulty and
labour? Let them apply their ingenuity, and defend error. If it is
easily attained to, and without labour, it cannot be the chief good.
For why should we torment ourselves, why wear ourselves out with
striving day and night, seeing that the object of our pursuit is so
close at hand, that any one who wishes may grasp it without any effort
of the mind? But if we do not attain even to a common and moderate good
except by labour, since good things are by their nature arduous and
difficult,(2) whereas evil things have a
downward tendency, it follows that the greatest labour is necessary for
the attainment of the greatest good. And if this is most true, then
there is need of another virtue, that we may arrive at that virtue
which is called the chief good; but this is incongruous and absurd,
that virtue should arrive at itself by means of itself. If no good can
be reached unless by labour, it is evident that it is virtue by which
it is reached, since the force and office of virtue consist in the
undertaking and carrying through of labours. Therefore the chief good
cannot be that by which it is necessary to arrive at another. But they,
since they were ignorant of the effects and tendency of virtue, and
could discover nothing more honourable, stopped at the very name of
virtue, and said that it ought to be sought, though no advantage was
proposed from it; and thus they fixed for themselves a good which it
self stood in need of a good. From these Aristotle was not far removed,
who thought that virtue together with honour was the chief good; as
though it were possible for any virtue to exist unless it were
honourable, and as though it would not cease to be virtue if it had any
measure of disgrace. But he saw that it might happen that a bad opinion
is entertained respecting virtue by a depraved judgment, and therefore
he thought that deference should be paid to what in the estimation of
men constitutes a departure from what is right and good, because it is
not in our power that virtue should be honoured simply for its own
deserts. For what is honourable(3) character, except perpetual honour,
conferred on any one by the favourable report of the people? What,
then, will happen, if through the error and perverseness of men a bad
reputation should ensue? Shall we cast aside virtue because it is
judged to be base and disgraceful by the foolish? And since it is
capable of being oppressed and harassed, in order that it may be of
itself a peculiar and lasting good, it ought to stand in need of no
outward assistance, so as not to depend by itself upon its own
strength, and to remain stedfast. And thus no good is to be hoped by it
from man, nor is any evil to be refused.
CHAP. IX.--OF THE CHIEF GOOD, AND THE WORSHIP OF THE TRUE GOD, AND A
REFUTATION OF ANAXAGORAS.
I now come to the chief good of true wisdom, the
nature of which is to be determined in this manner: first, it must be
the property of man alone, and not belong to any other animal;
secondly, it must belong to the soul only, and
77
not be shared with the body; lastly, it cannot fall to the lot of any
one without knowledge and virtue. Now this limitation excludes and does
away with all the opinions of those whom I have mentioned; for their
sayings contain nothing of this kind. I will now say what this is, that
I may show, as I designed, that all philosophers were blind and
foolish, who could neither see, nor understand, nor surmise at any time
what was fixed as the chief good for man. Anaxagoras, when asked for
what purpose he was born, replied that he might look upon the heaven
and the sun. This expression is admired by all, and judged worthy of a
philosopher. But I think that he, being unprepared with an answer,
uttered this at random, that he might(1) not be silent. But if he had
been wise, he ought to have considered and reflected with himself; for
if any one is ignorant of his own condition, he cannot even he a man.
But let us imagine that the saying was not uttered on the spur of the
moment. Let us see how many and what great errors he Committed in three
words. First, he erred in placing the whole duty of man in the eyes
alone, referring nothing to the mind, but everything to the body. But
if he had been blind, would he lose the duty of a man, which cannot
happen without the ruin(2) of the soul? What of the other parts of the
body? Will they be destitute, each of its own duty? Why should I say
that more depends upon the ears than upon the eye, since learning and
wisdom can be gained by the ears only, but not by the eyes only? Were
you born for the sake of seeing the heaven and the sun? Who introduced
you to this(3) sight? or what does your vision contribute to the heaven
and the nature of things? Doubtless that you may praise this immense
and wonderful work. Therefore confess that God is the Creator of all
things, who introduced you into this world, as a witness and praiser of
His great work. You believe that it is a great thing to behold the
heaven and the sun: why, therefore, do you not give thanks to Him who
is the author of this benefit? why do you not measure with your mind
the excellence, the providence, and the power of Him whose works you
admire? For it must be, that He who created objects worthy of
admiration, is Himself much more to be admired. If any one had invited
you to dinner, and you had been well entertained, should you appear in
your senses, if you esteemed the mere pleasure more highly than the
author of the pleasure? So entirely do philosophers refer all things to
the body, and nothing at all to the mind, nor do they see beyond that
which fails under their eyes. But all
the offices of the body being put aside, the business of man is to be
placed in the mind alone. Therefore we are not born for this purpose,
that we may see those things which are created, but that we may
contemplate, that is, behold with our mind, the Creator of all things
Himself. Wherefore, if any one should ask a man who is truly wise for
what purpose he was born, he will answer without fear or hesitation,
that he was born for the purpose of worshipping God, who brought us
into being for his cause, that we may serve Him. But to serve God is
nothing else than to maintain and preserve justice by good works. But
he, as a man ignorant of divine things, reduced a matter of the
greatest magnitude to the least, by selecting two things only, which he
said were to be beheld by him. But if he had said that he was born to
behold the world, although he would comprise all things in this, and
would use an expression of greater(4) sound, yet he would not have
completed the duty of man; for as much as the soul excels the body, so
much does God excel the world, for God made and governs the world.
Therefore it is not the world which is to be contemplated by the eye,
for each is a body;(5) but it is God who is to be contemplated by the
soul: for God, being Himself immortal, willed that the soul also should
be everlasting. But the contemplation of God is the reverence and
worship of the common Parent of mankind. And if the philosophers were
destitute of this, and in their ignorance of divine things prostrated
themselves to the earth, we must suppose that Anaxagoras neither beheld
the heaven nor the sun, though he said that he was born that he might
behold them. The object proposed to man is therefore plain(6) and easy,
if he is wise; and to it especially belongs humanity.(7) For what is
humanity itself, but justice? what is justice, but piety? And piety(8)
is nothing else than the recognition of God as a parent.
CHAP.X.--IT IS THE PECULIAR PROPERTY OF MAN TO KNOW AND WORSHIP
GOD.
Therefore the chief good of man is in religion only;
for the other things, even those which are supposed to be peculiar to
man, are found in the other animals also. For when they discern and
distinguish their own voices(9) by peculiar marks among themselves,
they seem to converse: they also appear to have a kind of smile, when
with soothed ears, and contracted mouth, and with
78
eyes relaxed to sportiveness, they fawn upon man, or upon their own
mates and young. Do they not give a greeting which bears some
resemblance to mutual love and indulgence? Again, those creatures which
look forward to the future and lay up for themselves food, plainly have
foresight. Indications of reason are also found in many of them. For
since they desire things useful to themselves, guard against evils,
avoid dangers, prepare for themselves lurking-places standing open in
different places with various outlets, assuredly they have some
understanding. Can any one deny that they are possessed of reason,
since they often deceive man himself? For those which have the office
of producing honey, when they inhabit the place assigned to them,
fortify a camp, construct dwellings with unspeakable skill, and obey
their king; I know not if there is not in them perfect prudence. It is
therefore uncertain whether those things which are given to man are
common to him with other living creatures: they are certainly without
religion. I indeed thus judge, that reason is given to all animals, but
to the dumb creatures only for the protection of life, to man also for
its prolongation. And because reason itself is perfect in man, it is
named wisdom, which renders man distinguished in this respect, that to
him alone it is given to comprehend divine things. And concerning this
the opinion of Cicero is true: "Of so many kinds of animals," he says,
"there is none except man which has any knowledge of God; and among men
themselves, there is no nation either so uncivilized or so savage,
which, even if it is ignorant of due conceptions of the Deity, does not
know that some conception of Him ought to be entertained." From which
it is effected, that he acknowledges God, who, as it were, calls
to mind the source from which he is sprung. Those philosophers,
therefore, who wish to free the mind from all fear, take away even
religion, and thus deprive man of his peculiar and surpassing good,
which is distinct from living uprightly, and from everything connected
with man, because God, who made all living creatures subject to man,
also made man subject to Himself. What reason is there why they should
also maintain that the mind is to be turned in the same direction to
which the countenance is raised? For if we must look to the heaven, it
is undoubtedly for no other reason than on account of religion; if
religion is taken away, we have nothing to do with the heaven.
Therefore we must either look in that direction or bend down to the
earth. We are not able to bend down to the earth, even if we should
wish, since our posture is upright. We must therefore look up to the
heaven, to which the nature of the body calls us. And if it is admitted
that this must be done, it must either be done with this
view, that we may devote ourselves to religion, or that we may know the
nature of the heavenly objects. But we cannot by any means know the
nature of the heavenly objects, because nothing of that kind can be
found out by reflection, as I have before shown. We must therefore
devote ourselves to religion, and he who does not undertake this
prostrates himself to the ground, and, imitating the life of the
brutes, abdicates the office of man. Therefore the ignorant are more
wise; for although they err in choosing religion, yet they remember
their own nature and condition.
CHAP. XI.--OF
RELIGION, WISDOM, AND THE CHIEF GOOD.
It is agreed upon, therefore, by the general consent
of all mankind, that religion ought to be undertaken; but we have to
explain what errors are committed on this subject. God willed this to
be the nature of man, that he should be desirous and eager for two
things, religion and wisdom. But men are mistaken in this, that they
either undertake religion and pay no attention to wisdom, or they
devote themselves to wisdom alone, and pay no attention to religion,
though the one cannot be true without the other. The consequence is,
that they fall into a multiplicity of religions, but false ones,
because they have left wisdom, which could have taught them that there
cannot be many gods; or they devote themselves to wisdom, but a false
wisdom, because they have paid no attention to the religion of the
Supreme God, who might have instructed them to the knowledge of the
truth. Thus men who undertake either of these courses follow a devious
path, and one full of the greatest errors, inasmuch as the duty of man,
and all truth, are included in these two things which are inseparably
connected. I wonder, therefore, that there was none at all of the
philosophers who discovered the abode and dwelling-place of the chief
good. For they might have sought it in this manner. Whatever the
greatest good is, it must be an object proposed to all men. There is
pleasure, which is desired by all; but this is common also to man with
the beasts, and has not the force of the honourable, and brings a
feeling of satiety, and when it is in excess is injurious, and it is
lessened by advance of age, and does not fall to the lot of many: for
they who are without resources, who constitute the greater part of men,
must also be without pleasure. Therefore pleasure is not the chief
good; but it is not even a good. What shall we say of riches? This is
much more(1) true of them. For they fall to the lot of fewer men, and
that generally by chance; and they often fall to the indolent, and
79
sometimes by guilt, and they are desired by those who already possess
them. What shall we say of sovereignty itself? That does not constitute
the chief good: for all cannot reign, but it is necessary that all
should be capable of attaining the chief good.
Let us therefore seek something which is held forth
to all. Is it virtue? It cannot be denied that virtue is a good, and
undoubtedly a good for all men. But if it cannot be happy because its
power and nature consist in the endurance of evil, it assuredly is not
the chief good. Let us seek something else. But nothing can be found
more beautiful than virtue, nothing more worthy of a wise man. For if
vices are to be avoided on account of their deformity, virtue is
therefore to be desired on account of its beauty. What then? Can it be
that that which is admitted to be good and honourable should be
requited with no reward, and be so unproductive as to procure no
advantage from itself? That great labour and difficulty and struggling
against evils with which this life is filled, must of necessity produce
some great good. But what shall we say that it is? Pleasure? But
nothing that is base can arise from that which is honourable. Shall we
say that it is riches? or commands? But these things are frail and
uncertain.(1) Is it glory? or honour? or a lasting name? But all these
things are not contained in virtue itself, but depend upon the opinion
and judgment of others. For virtue is often hated and visited with
evil. But the good which arises from it ought to be so closely united
with it as to be incapable of being separated or disunited from it; and
it cannot appear to be the chief good in any other way than if it
belongs peculiarly to virtue, and is such that nothing can be added to
it or taken from it. Why should I say that the duties of virtue consist
in the despising of all these things? For not to long for, or desire,
or love pleasures, riches, dominions, and honours, and all those things
which are esteemed as goods, as others do overpowered by desire, that
assuredly is virtue. Therefore it effects something else more sublime
and excellent; nor does anything struggle against these present goods
but that which longs for greater and truer things. Let us not despair
of being able to find it, if we turn our thoughts in all directions;
for no slight or trifling rewards are sought.
CHAP. XII.--OF THE TWOFOLD CONFLICT OF BODY AND SOUL; AND OF DESIRING
VIRTUE ON ACCOUNT OF ETERNAL LIFE.
But our inquiry is as to the object for which we are
born: and thus we are able to trace out
what is the effect of virtue. There are two(2) parts of which man is
made up, soul and body. There are many things peculiar to the soul,
many peculiar to the body, many common to both, as is virtue itself;
and as often as this is referred to the body, it is called fortitude
for the sake of distinction. Since, therefore, fortitude is connected
with each, a contest is proposed to each, and victory held forth to
each from the contest: the body, because it is solid, and capable of
being grasped, must contend with objects which are solid and can be
grasped; but the soul, on the other hand, because it is slights and
subtle, and invisible, contends with those enemies who cannot be seen
and touched. But what are the enemies of the soul, but lusts, vices,
and sins? And if virtue shall have overcome and put to flight these,
the soul will be pure and free from stain. Whence, then, are we able to
collect what are the effects of fortitude of soul? Doubtless from that
which is closely connected with it, and resembles it, that is, from
fortitude of the body; for when this has come to any encounter and
contest, what else does it seek from victory but life? For whether you
contend with a man or beast, the contest is for safety. Therefore, as
the body obtains by victory its preservation from destruction, so the
soul obtains a continuation of its existence; and as the body, when
over come by its enemies, suffers death, so the soul, when overpowered
by vices, must die. What difference, therefore, will there be between
the contest carried on by the soul and that carried on by the body,
except that the body seeks for temporal, but the soul eternal life? If,
therefore, virtue is not happy by itself, since its whole force
consists, as I have said, in the enduring of evils; if it neglects all
things which are desired as goods; if in its highest condition it is
exposed to death, inasmuch as it often refuses life, which is desired
by others, and bravely undergoes death, which others fear; if it must
necessarily produce some great good from itself, because labours,
endured and overcome even until death, cannot fail of obtaining a
reward; if no reward, such as it deserves, is found on earth, inasmuch
as it despises all things which are frail and transitory, what else
remains but that it may effect some heavenly reward, since it treats
with contempt all earthly things, and may aim at higher things, since
it despises things that are humble? And this reward can be nothing else
but immortality.
With good reason, therefore, did Euclid, no obscure
philosopher, who was the founder of the system of the Megareans,
differing from the others, say that that was the chief good which
80
was unvarying and always the same. He certainly understood what is the
nature of the chief good, although he did not explain in what it
consisted; but it consists of immortality, nor anything else at all,
inasmuch as it alone is incapable of diminution, or increase, or
change. Seneca also unconsciously happened to confess that there is no
other reward of virtue than immortality. For in praising virtue in the
treatise which he wrote on the subject of premature death, he says:
"Virtue is the only thing which can confer upon us immortality, and
make us equal to the gods." But the Stoics also, whom he followed, say
that no one can be made happy without virtue. Therefore, the reward of
virtue is a happy life, if virtue, as it is rightly said, makes a happy
life. Virtue, therefore, is not, as they say, to be sought on its own
account, but on account of a happy life, which necessarily follows
virtue. And this argument might have taught them in what the chief good
consisted. But this present and corporeal life cannot be happy, because
it is subjected to evils through the body. Epicurus calls God happy and
incorruptible, because He is everlasting. For a state of happiness
ought to be perfect, so that there may be nothing which can harass, or
lessen, or change it. Nor can anything be judged happy in other
respects, unless it be incorruptible. But nothing is incorruptible but
that which is immortal. Immortality therefore is alone happy, because
it can neither be corrupted nor destroyed. But if virtue falls within
the power of man, which no one can deny, happiness also belongs to him.
For it is impossible for a man to be wretched who is endued with
virtue. If happiness falls within his power, then immortality, which is
possessed of the attribute of happiness, also belongs to him.
The chief good, therefore, is found to be
immortality alone, which pertains to no other animal or body; nor can
it happen to any one without the virtue of knowledge, that is, without
the knowledge of God and justice. And how true and right is the seeking
for this, the very desire of this life shows: for although it be but
temporary, and most full of labour, yet it is sought and desired by
all; for both old men and boys, kings and those of the lowest station,
in fine, wise as well as foolish, desire this. Of such value, as it
seemed to Anaxagoras, is the contemplation of the heaven and the light
itself, that men willingly undergo any miseries on this account. Since,
therefore, this short and laborious life, by the general consent not
only of men, but also of other animals, is considered a great good, it
is manifest that it becomes also a very great and perfect good if it is
without an end and free from all evil. In short, there never would have
been any one who would despise this life, however short it is, or
undergo death,
unless through the hope of a longer life. For those who voluntarily
offered themselves to death for the safety of their countrymen, as
Menoeceus did at Thebes, Codrus at Athens, Curtius and the two Mures at
Rome, would never have preferred death to the advantages of life,
unless they had thought that they should attain to immortality through
the estimation of their countrymen; and although they were ignorant of
the life of immortality, yet the reality itself did not escape their
notice. For if virtue despises opulence and riches because they are
frail, and pleasures because they are of brief continuance, it
therefore despises a life which is frail and brief, that it may obtain
one which is substantial and lasting. Therefore reflection itself,
advancing by regular order, and weighing everything, leads us to that
excellent and surpassing good, on account of which we are born. And if
philosophers had thus acted, if they had not preferred obstinately to
maintain that which they had once apprehended, they would undoubtedly
have arrived at this truth, as I have lately shown. And if this was not
the part of those who extinguish the heavenly souls together with the
body, yet those who discuss the immortality of the soul ought to have
understood that virtue is set before us on this account, that, lusts
having been subdued, and the desire of earthly things overcome, our
souls, pure and victorious, may return to God, that is, to their
original source. For it is on this account that we alone of living
creatures are raised to the sight of the heaven, that we may believe
that our chief good is in the highest place. Therefore we alone receive
religion, that we may know from this source that the spirit of man is
not mortal, since it longs for and acknowledges God, who is immortal.
Therefore, of all the philosophers, those who have
embraced either knowledge or virtue as the chief good, have kept the
way of truth, but have not arrived at perfection. For these are the two
things which together make up that which is sought for. Knowledge
causes us to know by what means and to what end we must attain; virtue
causes us to attain to it. The one without the other is of no avail;
for from knowledge arises virtue, and from virtue the chief good is
produced. Therefore a happy life, which philosophers have always
sought, and still do seek, has no existence either in the worship of
the gods or in philosophy; and on this account they were unable to find
it, because they did not seek the highest good in the highest place,
but in the lowest. For what is the highest but heaven, and God, from
whom the soul has its origin? And what is the lowest but the earth,
from which the body is made? Therefore, although some philosophers have
assigned the chief good, not to the body, but to the soul, yet,
inasmuch as they
81
have referred it to this life, which has its ending with the body, they
have gone back to the body, to which the whole of this time which is
passed on earth has reference. Therefore it was not without reason that
they did not attain to the highest good; for whatever looks to the body
only, and is without immortality, must necessarily be the lowest.
Therefore happiness does not fall to the condition of man in that
manner in which philosophers thought; but it so falls to him, not that
he should then be happy, when he lives in the body, which must
undoubtedly be corrupted in order to its dissolution; but then, when,
the soul being freed from intercourse with the body, he lives in the
spirit only. In this one thing alone can we be happy in this life, if
we appear to be unhappy; if, avoiding the enticements of pleasures, and
giving ourselves to the service of virtue only, we live in all labours
and miseries, which are the means of exercising and strengthening
virtue; if, in short, we keep to that rugged and difficult path which
has been opened for us to happiness. The chief good therefore which
makes men happy cannot exist, unless it be in that religion and
doctrine to which is annexed the hope of immortality.
CHAP. XIII.--OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, AND OF WISDOM, PHILOSOPHY,
AND ELOQUENCE.
The subject seems to require in this place, that
since we have taught that immortality is the chief good, we should
prove this also, that the soul is immortal. On which subject there is
great disputation among philosophers; nor have they who held true
opinions respecting the soul been able to explain or prove anything:
for, being destitute of divine knowledge, they neither brought forward
true arguments by which they might overcome, nor evidence by which they
might convince. But we shall treat of this question more conveniently
in the last book, when we shall have to discuss the subject of a happy
life. There remains that third part of philosophy, which they call
Logic, in which the whole subject of dialectics and the whole method of
speaking are contained. Divine learning does not stand in need of this,
because the seat of wisdom is not the tongue, but the heart; and it
makes no difference what kind of language you employ, for the question
is not about words,(1) but facts. And we are not disputing about the
grammarian or the orator, whose knowledge is concerned with the proper
manner of speaking, but about the wise man, whose learning is concerned
with the right manner of living. But if that system of natural
philosophy before mentioned is not necessary, nor this of logic,
because they are not able to render a man happy, it remains that the
whole force of philosophy is contained in the ethical part alone, to
which Socrates is said to have applied himself, laying aside the
others. And since I have shown that philosophers erred in this part
also, who did not grasp the chief good, for the sake of gaining which
we are born; it appears that philosophy is altogether false and empty,
since it does not prepare us for the duties of justice, nor strengthen
the obligations and settled course of man's life. Let them know,
therefore, that they are in error who imagine that philosophy is
wisdom; let them not be drawn away by the authority of any one; but
rather let them incline to the truth, and approach it. There is no room
for rashness here; we must endure the punishment of our folly to all
eternity, if we shall be deceived either by an empty character or a
false opinion. But man,(2) such as he is, if he trusts in himself, that
is, if he trusts in man, is (not to say foolish, in that he does not
see his own error) undoubtedly arrogant, in venturing to claim for
himself that which the condition of man does not admit of.
And how much that greatest author of the Roman
language is deceived, we may see from that sentiment of his; for when,
in his "Books on Offices,"(3) he had said that philosophy is nothing
else than the desire of wisdom, and that wisdom itself is the knowledge
of things divine and human, added: "And if any one censures the desire
Of this, I do not indeed understand what there is which he imagines
praiseworthy. For if enjoyment of the mind and rest from cares is
sought, what enjoyment can be compared with the pursuits of those who
are always inquiring into something which has reference to and tends to
promote a good and happy life? Or if any account is taken of
consistency and virtue, either this is the study(4) by which we may
attain them, or there is none at all. To say that there is no system in
connection with the greatest subjects, when none of the least is
without a system, is the part of men speaking inconsiderately, and
erring in the greatest subjects. But if there is any discipline of
virtue, where shall it be sought when you have departed from that kind
of learning?" For my own part, although I endeavoured to attain in some
degree to the means of acquiring learning, on account of my desire to
teach others, yet I have never been eloquent, inasmuch as I never even
engaged in
82
public speaking; but the goodness of the cause cannot fail of itself to
make me eloquent, and for its clear and copious defence the knowledge
of divinity and the truth itself are sufficient. I could wish,
therefore, that Cicero might for a short time rise from the dead, that
a man of such consummate eloquence might be taught by an insignificant
person who is devoid of eloquence, first, what that is which is deemed
worthy of praise by him who blames that study which is called
philosophy; and in the next place, that it is not that study by which
virtue and justice are learned, nor any other, as he thought; and
lastly, that since there is a discipline of virtue, he might be taught
where it is to be sought, when you have laid aside that kind of
learning, which he did not seek for the sake of hearing and learning.
For from whom could he hear when no one knew it? But, as his usual
practice was in pleading causes, he wished to press his opponent by
questioning, and thus to lead him to confession, as though he were
confident that no answer could be given to show that philosophy was not
the instructress of virtue. And in the Tusculan disputations he openly
professed this, turning his speech to philosophy, as though he was
showing himself off by a declamatory style of speaking. "O philosophy,
thou guide of life," he says; "O thou investigator of virtue, and
expeller of vices; what could not only we, but the life of men, have
effected at all without thee? Thou hast been the inventor of laws, thou
the teacher of morals and discipline;"--as though, indeed, she could
perceive anything by herself, and he were not rather to be praised who
gave her. In the same manner he might have given thanks to food and
drink, because without these life could not exist; yet these, while
they minister to sense, confer no benefit. But as these things are the
nourishment of the body, so wisdom is of the soul.
CHAP. XIV.--THAT LUCRETIUS AND OTHERS HAVE ERRED, AND CICERO HIMSELF,
IN FIXING THE ORIGIN OF WISDOM.
Lucretius, accordingly, acts more correctly in
praising him who was the first discoverer of wisdom; but he acts
foolishly in this, that he supposed it to be discovered by a man,--as
though that man whom he praises had found it lying somewhere as flutes
at the fountain,(1) according to the legends of the poets. But if he
praised the inventor of wisdom as a god,--for thus he speaks:(2)--
"No one, I think, who is formed of mortal body. For if we must speak,
as the acknowledged majesty of the subject itself demands, he was a
god, he was a god, most noble Memmius,"--
yet God ought not to have been praised on this account, because He
discovered wisdom, but because He created man, who might be capable of
receiving wisdom. For he diminishes the praise who praises a part only
of the whole. But he praised Him as a man; whereas He ought to have
been esteemed as a God on this very account, because He found out
wisdom. For thus he speaks:(3)--
"Will it not be right that this man should be enrolled among the gods?"
From this it appears, either that he wished to praise Pythagoras, who
was the first, as I have said,(4) to call himself a philosopher; or
Thales of Miletus, who is reported to have been the first who discussed
the nature of things. Thus, while he seeks to exalt, he has depressed
the thing itself. For it is not great if it could have been discovered
by man. But he may be pardoned as a poet. But that same accomplished
orator, that same consummate philosopher, also censures the Greeks,
whose levity he always accuses, and yet imitates. Wisdom itself, which
at one time he calls the gift, at another time the invention, of the
gods, he fashions after the manner of the poets, and praises on account
of its beauty. He also grievously complains that there have been some
who disparaged it. "Can any one," he says, "dare to censure the parent
of life, and to defile himself with this guilt of parricide, and to be
so impiously ungrateful?"
Are we then parricides, Marcus Tullius, and in your
judgment worthy to be sewed(5) up in a bag, who deny that philosophy is
the parent of life? Or you, who are so impiously ungrateful towards God
(not this god whose image you worship as he sits in the Capitol, but
Him who made the world and created man, who bestowed wisdom also among
His heavenly benefits), do you call her the teacher of virtue or the
parent of life, having learned(6) from whom, one must be in much
greater uncertainty than he was before? For of what virtue is she the
teacher? For philosophers to the present time do not explain where she
is situated. Of what life is she the parent? since the teachers
themselves have been worn out by old age and death before they have
determined upon the befitting course of life. Of what truth can you
hold her forth as an explorer? since you often testify that, in so
great a multitude of philosophers, not a single wise man has yet
existed. What, then, did that mistress of life teach you? Was it to
assail with reproaches the most powerful consul,(7) and by
83
your envenomed speeches to render him the enemy of his country? But let
us pass by those things, which may be excused under the name of
fortune. You applied yourself, in truth, to the study of philosophy,
and so, indeed, that no one ever applied himself more diligently; since
you were acquainted with all the systems of philosophy, as you yourself
are accustomed to oast, and elucidated the subject itself in Latin
writings, and displayed yourself as an imitator of Plato. Tell us,
therefore, what you have learned, or in what sect you have discovered
the truth. Doubtless it was in the Academy which you followed and
approved. But this teaches nothing, excepting that you know your own
ignorance.(1) Therefore your own books refute you, and show the
nothingness of the learning which may be gained from philosophy for
life. These are your words: "But to me we appear not only blind to
wisdom, but dull and obtuse to those very things which may appear in
some degree to be discerned." If, therefore, philosophy is the teacher
of life, why did you appear to yourself blind, and dull, and obtuse?
whereas you ought, under her teaching, both to perceive and to be wise,
and to be engaged in the clearest light. But how you confessed the
truth of philosophy we learn from the letters addressed to your son, in
which you advise him that the precepts of philosophy ought to be known,
but that we must live as members of a community.(2)
What can be spoken so contradictory? If the precepts
of philosophy ought to be known, it is on this account that they ought
to be known, in order to our living well and wisely. Or if we must live
as members of a community, then philosophy is not wisdom, if it is
better to live in accordance with society than with philosophy. For if
that which is called philosophy be wisdom, he assuredly lives foolishly
who does not live according to philosophy. But if he does not live
foolishly who lives in accordance with society, it follows that he who
lives according to philosophy lives foolishly. By your own judgment,
therefore, philosophy is condemned of folly and emptiness. And you
also, in your Consolation, that is, not in a work of levity and mirth,
introduced this sentiment respecting philosophy: "But I know not what
error possesses us, or deplorable ignorance of the truth." Where, then,
is the guidance of philosophy? or what has that parent of life taught
you, if you are deplorably ignorant of the truth? But if this
confession of error and ignorance has been extorted almost against your
will from your innermost breast, why do you not at length acknowledge
to yourself the truth, that philosophy which, though it teaches
nothing, you extolled with praises to the heavens, cannot be the
teacher of virtue?
CHAP. XV.--THE ERROR OF SENECA IN PHILOSOPHY, AND HOW THE SPEECH OF
PHILOSOPHERS IS AT VARIANCE WITH THEIR LIFE.
Under the influence of the same error (for who could
keep the right course when Cicero is in error?), Seneca said:
"Philosophy is nothing else than the right method of living, or the
science of living honourably, or the art of passing a good life. We
shall not err in saying that philosophy is the law of living well and
honourably. And he who spoke of it as a rule of life, gave to it that
which was its due." He evidently did not refer to the common name of
philosophy; for, since this is diffused into many sects and systems,
and has nothing certain--nothing, in short, respecting which all agree
with one mind and one voice,--what can be so false as that philosophy
should be called the rule of life, since the diversity of its precepts
hinders the right way and causes confusion? or the law of living well,
when its subjects are widely discordant? or the science of passing
life, in which nothing else is effected by its repeated contradictions
than general(3) uncertainty? For I ask whether he thinks that the
Academy is philosophy or not? I do not think that he will deny it. And
if this is so, none of these things, therefore, is in agreement with
philosophy; which renders all things uncertain, abrogates law, esteems
art as nothing, subverts method, distorts rule, entirely takes away
knowledge. Therefore all those things are false, because they are
inconsistent with a system which is always uncertain, and up to this
time explaining nothing. Therefore no system, or science, or law of
living well, has been established, except in this the only true and
heavenly wisdom, which had been unknown to philosophers. For that
earthly wisdom, since it is false, becomes varied and manifold, and
altogether opposed to itself. And as there is but one founder and ruler
of the world, God, and as truth is one; so wisdom must be one and
simple, because, if anything is true and good, it cannot be perfect
unless it is the only one of its kind. But if philosophy were able to
form the life, no others but philosophers would be good, and all those
who had not learned it would be always bad. But since there are, and
always have been, innumerable persons who are or have been good without
any learning, but of philosophers there has seldom been one who has
done anything praiseworthy in his life; who is there, I pray, who does
not see that those men are not teachers
84
of virtue, of which they themselves are destitute? For if any one
should diligently inquire into their character, he will find that they
are passionate, covetous, lustful, arrogant, wanton, and, concealing
their vices under a show of wisdom, doing those things at home which
they had censured in the schools.(1)
Perhaps I speak falsely for the sake of bringing an
accusation. Does not Tullius both acknowledge and complain of the same
thing? "How few," he says, "of philosophers are found of such a
character, so constituted in soul and life, as reason demands! how few
who think true instruction not a display of knowledge, but a law of
life! how few who are obedient to themselves, and submit to their own
decrees! We may see some of such levity and ostentation, that it would
be better for them not to have learned at all; others eagerly desirous
of money, others of glory; many the slaves of lusts, so that their
speech wonderfully disagrees with their life." Cornelius Nepos also
writes to the same Cicero: "So far am I from thinking that philosophy
is the teacher of life and the completer of happiness, that I consider
that none have greater need of teachers of living than many who are
engaged in the discussion of this subject. For I see that a great part
of those who give most elaborate precepts in their school
respect-modesty and self-restraint, live at the same time in the
unrestrained desires of all lusts." Seneca also, in his Exhortations,
says: "Many of the philosophers are of this description, eloquent to
their own condemnation: for if you should hear them arguing against
avarice, against lust and ambition, you would think that they were
making a public disclosure(2) of their own character, so entirely do
the censures which they utter in public flow back upon themselves; so
that it is right to regard them in no other light than as physicians,
whose advertisements(3) contain medicines, but their medicine chests
poison. Some are not ashamed of their vices; but they invent defences
for their baseness, so that they may appear even to sin with honour."
Seneca also says: "The wise man will even do things which he will not
approve of, that he may find means of passing to the accomplishment of
greater things; nor will he abandon good morals, but will adapt them to
the occasion; and those things which others employ for glory or
pleasure, he will employ for the sake of action." Then he says shortly
afterwards: "All things which the luxurious and the ignorant do, the
wise man also will do, but not in the same manner, and with the same
purpose. But it makes no difference with what intention you act, when
the action itself is vicious; because acts are seen, the intention is
not seen."
Aristippus, the master of the Cyrenaics, had a
criminal intimacy with Lais, the celebrated courtesan; and that grave
teacher of philosophy defended this fault by saying, that there was a
great difference between him and the other lovers of Lais, because he
himself possessed Lais, whereas others were possessed by Lais. O
illustrious wisdom, to be imitated by good men! Would you, in truth,
entrust your children to this man for education, that they might learn
to possess a harlot? He said that there was some difference between
himself and the dissolute, that they wasted their property, whereas he
lived in indulgence without any cost. And in this the harlot was
plainly the wiser, who had the philosopher as her creature, that all
the youth, corrupted by the example and authority of the teacher, might
flock together to her without any shame. What difference therefore did
it make, with what intention the philosopher betook himself to that
most notorious harlot, when the people and his rivals saw him more
depraved than all the abandoned? Nor was it enough to live in this
manner, but he began also to teach lusts; and he transferred his habits
from the brothel to the school, contending that bodily pleasure was the
chief good. Which pernicious and shameful doctrine has its origin not
in the heart of the philosopher, but in the bosom of the harlot.
For why should I speak of the Cynics, who practised
licentiousness in public? What wonder if they derived their name and
title from dogs,(4) since they also imitated their life? Therefore
there is no instruction of virtue in this sect, since even those who
enjoin more honourable things either themselves do not practise what
they advise; or if they do (which rarely happens), it is not the system
which leads them to that which is right, but nature which often impels
even the unlearned to praise.
CHAP. XVI.--THAT THE PHILOSOPHERS WHO GIVE GOOD INSTRUCTIONS LIVE
BADLY, BY THE TESTIMONY OF CICERO; THEREFORE WE SHOULD NOT SO MUCH
DEVOTE OURSELVES TO THE STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY AS TO WISDOM.
But when they give themselves up to perpetual sloth,
and undertake no exercise of virtue, and pass their whole life in the
practice of speaking, in what light ought they to be regarded rather
than as triflers? For wisdom, unless it is engaged on some action on
which it may exert its force, is empty and false; and Tullius rightly
85
gives the preference, above teachers of philosophy, to those men
employed in civil affairs, who govern the state, who found new cities
or maintain with equity those already founded, who preserve the safety
and liberty of the citizens either by good laws or wholesome counsels,
or by weighty judgments. For it is right to make men good rather than
to give precepts about duty to those shut up in corners, which precepts
are not observed even by those who speak them; and inasmuch as they
have withdrawn themselves from true actions, it is manifest that they
invented the system of philosophy itself, for the purpose of exercising
the tongue, or for the sake of pleading. But they who merely teach
without acting, of themselves detract from the weight of their own
precepts; for who would obey, when they who give the precepts
themselves teach disobedience? Moreover, it is a good thing to give
right and honourable precepts; but unless you also practise them it is
a deceit, and it is inconsistent and trifling to have goodness not in
the heart, but on the lips.
It is not therefore utility, but enjoyment, which
they seek from philosophy. And this Cicero indeed testified. "Truly,"
he says, "all their disputation, although it contains most abundant
fountains of virtue and knowledge, yet, when compared with their
actions and accomplishments, I fear lest it should seem not to have
brought so much advantage to the business of men as enjoyment to their
times of relaxation." He ought not to have feared, since he spoke the
truth; but as if he were afraid lest he should be arraigned by the
philosophers on a charge of betraying a mystery, he did not venture
confidently to pronounce that which was true, that they do not dispute
for the purpose of teaching, but for their own enjoyment in their
leisure; and since they are the advisers of actions, and do not
themselves act at all, they are to be regarded as mere talkers.(1) But
assuredly, because they contributed no advantage to life, they neither
obeyed their own decrees, nor has any one been found, through so many
ages, who lived in accordance with their laws. Therefore philosophy(2)
must altogether be laid aside, because we are not to devote
ourselves to the pursuit of wisdom, for this has no limit or
moderation; but we must be wise, and that indeed quickly. For a second
life is not granted to us, so that when we seek wisdom in this life we
may be wise in that; each result must be brought about in this life. It
ought to be quickly found, in order that it may be quickly taken up,
lest any part of life should pass away, the end of which is uncertain.
Hortensius in Cicero, contending against philosophy, is pressed by a
clever argument; inasmuch as, when he said that men ought not to
philosophize, he seemed nevertheless to philosophize, since it is the
part of the philosophers to discuss what ought and what ought not to be
done in life. We are free and exempt from this calumny, who take away
philosophy, because it is the invention of human thought; we defend
wisdom, because it is a divine tradition, and we testify that it ought
to be taken up by all. He, when he took away philosophy without
introducing anything better, was supposed to take away wisdom; and on
that account was more easily driven from his opinion, because it is
agreed upon that man is not born to folly, but to wisdom.
Moreover, the argument which the same Hortensius
employed has great weight also against philosophy,--namely, that it may
be understood from this, that philosophy is not wisdom, since its
beginning and origin are apparent. When, he says, did philosophers
begin to exist? Thales, as I imagine, was the first, and his age was
recent. Where, then, among the more ancient men did that love of
investigating the truth lie hid? Lucretius also says:(3)--
"Then, too, this nature and system of things has been discovered
lately, and I the very first of all have only now been found able to
transfer it into native words."
And Seneca says: "There are not yet a thousand years since the
beginnings of wisdom were undertaken." Therefore mankind for many
generations lived without system. In ridicule of which, Persius
says:(4)--
"When wisdom came to the city,
Together with pepper and palms;"
as though wisdom had been introduced into the city together with
savoury merchandise.(5) For if it is in agreement with the nature of
man, it must have had its commencement together with man; but if it is
not in agreement with it, human nature would be incapable of receiving
it. But, inasmuch as it has received it, it follows that wisdom has
existed from the beginning: therefore philosophy, inasmuch as it has
not existed from the beginning, is not the same true wisdom. But, in
truth, the Greeks, because they had not attained to the sacred letters
of truth, did not know how wisdom was corrupted. And, therefore, since
they thought that human life was destitute of wisdom, they invented
philosophy; that is, they wished by discussion to tear up the truth
which was lying hid and unknown to them: and this employment, through
ignorance of the truth, they thought to be wisdom.
86
CHAP. XVII.--HE PASSES FROM PHILOSOPHY TO THE PHILOSOPHERS, BEGINNING
WITH EPICURUS; AND HOW HE REGARDED LEUCIPPUS AND DEMOCRITUS AS AUTHORS
OF ERROR.
I have spoken on the subject of philosophy itself as
briefly as I could; now let us come to the philosophers, not that we
may contend with these, who cannot maintain their ground, but that we
may pursue those who are in flight and driven from our battle-field.
The system of Epicurus was much more generally followed than those of
the others; not because it brings forward any truth, but because the
attractive name of pleasure invites many.(1) For every one is naturally
inclined to vices. Moreover, for the purpose of drawing the multitude
to himself, he speaks that which is specially adapted to each character
separately. He forbids the idle to apply himself to learning; he
releases the covetous man from giving largesses to the people; he
prohibits the inactive man from undertaking the business of the state,
the sluggish from bodily exercise, the timid from military service. The
irreligious is told that the gods pay no attention to the conduct of
men; the man who is unfeeling and selfish is ordered to give nothing to
any one, for that the wise man does everything on his own account. To a
man who avoids the crowd, solitude is praised. One who is too sparing,
learns that life can be sustained on water and meal. If a man hates his
wife, the blessings of celibacy are enumerated to him; to one who has
bad children, the happiness of those who are without children is
proclaimed; against unnatural(2) parents it is said that there is no
bond of nature. To the man who is delicate and incapable of endurance,
it is said that pain is the greatest of all evils; to the man of
fortitude, it is said that the wise man is happy even under tortures.
The man who devotes himself to the pursuit of influence and distinction
is enjoined to pay court to kings; he who cannot endure annoyance is
enjoined to shun the abode of kings. Thus the crafty man collects an
assembly from various and differing characters; and while he lays
himself out to please all, he is more at variance with himself than
they all are with one another. But we must explain from what source the
whole of this system is derived, and what origin it has.
Epicurus saw that the good are always subject to
adversities, poverty, labours, exile, loss of dear friends. On
the contrary, he saw that the wicked were happy; that they were exalted
with influence, and loaded with honours; he saw that
innocence was unprotected, that crimes were committed with impunity: he
saw that death raged without any regard to character, without any
arrangement or discrimination of age; but that some arrived at old age,
while others were carried off in their infancy; that some died when
they were now robust and vigorous, that others were cut off by an
untimely death in the first flower of youth; that in wars the better
men were especially overcome and slain. But that which especially moved
him, was the fact that religious men were especially visited with
weightier evils, whereas he saw that less evils or none at all fell
upon those who altogether neglected the gods, or worshipped them in an
impious manner; and that even the very temples themselves were often
set on fire by lightning. And of this Lucretius complains,(3) when he
says respecting the god:--
"Then he may hurl lightnings, and often throw down his temples, and
withdrawing into the deserts, there spend his rage in practising his
bolt, which often passes the guilty by, and strikes dead the innocent
and unoffending."
But if he had been able to collect even a small particle of truth, he
would never say that the god throws down his own temples, when he
throws them down on this account, because they are not his. The
Capitol, which is the chief seat of the Roman city and religion, was
struck with lightning and set on fire not once only, but frequently.
But what was the opinion of clever men respecting this is evident from
the saying of Cicero, who says that the flame came from heaven, not to
destroy that earthly dwelling-place of Jupiter, but to demand a loftier
and more magnificent abode. Concerning which transaction, in the books
respecting his consulship, he speaks to the same purport as Lucretius:--
"For the father thundering on high, throned in the lofty Olympus,
himself assailed his own citadels and famed temples, and cast fires
upon his abode in the Capitol.
In the obstinacy of their folly, therefore, they not only did not
understand the power and majesty of the true God, but they even
increased the impiety of their error, in endeavouring against all
divine law to restore a temple so often condemned by the judgment of
Heaven.
Therefore, when Epicurus reflected on these things,
induced as it were by the injustice of these matters (for thus it
appeared to him in his ignorance of the cause and subject), he thought
that there was no providence.(4) And having persuaded himself of this,
he undertook also to defend it, and thus he entangled himself in
inextricable errors. For if there is no providence,
87
how is it that the world was made with such order and arrangement? He
says: There is no arrangement, for many things are made in a different
manner from that in which they ought to have been made. And the divine
man found subjects of censure. Now, if I had leisure to refute these
things separately, I could easily show that this man was neither wise
nor of sound mind. Also, if there is no providence, how is it that the
bodies of animals are arranged with such foresight, that the various
members, being disposed in a wonderful manner, discharge their own
offices individually? The system of providence, he says, contrived
nothing in the production of animals; for neither were the eyes made
for seeing, nor the ears for hearing, nor the tongue for speaking, nor
the feet for walking; inasmuch as these were produced before it was
possible to speak, to hear, to see, and to walk. Therefore these were
not produced for use; but use was produced from them. If there is no
providence, why do rains fall, fruits spring up, and trees put forth
leaves? These things, he says, are not always done for the sake of
living creatures, inasmuch as they are of no benefit to providence; but
all things must be produced of their own accord. From what source,
therefore, do they arise,(1) or how are all things which are carried on
brought about? There is no need he says, of supposing a providence; for
there are seeds floating through the empty void, and from these,
collected together without order, all things are produced and take
their form. Why, then, do we not perceive or distinguish them? Because,
he says, they have neither any colour, nor warmth, nor smell; they are
also without flavour and moisture; and they are so minute, that they
cannot be cut and divided.
Thus, because he had taken up a false principle at
the commencement, the necessity of the subjects which followed led him
to absurdities. For where or from whence are these atoms? Why did no
one dream of them besides Leucippus only? from whom Democritus,(2)
having received instructions, left to Epicurus the inheritance of his
folly. And if these are minute bodies, and indeed solid, as they say,
they certainly are able to fall under the notice of the eyes. If the
nature of all things is the same, how is it that they compose various
objects? They meet together, he says, in varied order and position as
the letters which, though few in number, by variety of arrangement make
up innumerable words. But it is urged the letters have a variety of
forms. And so, he says, have these first principles; for they are
rough, they are furnished with hooks, they are smooth. Therefore they
can be cut and divided, if there is in them any
part which projects. Bat if they are smooth and without hooks, they
cannot cohere. They ought therefore to he hooked, that they may be
linked together one with another. But since they are said to be so
minute that they cannot be cut asunder by the edge of any weapon, how
is it that they have hooks or angles? For it must be possible for
these to be torn asunder, since they project. In the next place, by
what mutual compact, by what discernment, do they meet together, so
that anything may be constructed out of them? If they are without
intelligence, they cannot come together in such order and arrangement;
for nothing but reason can bring to accomplishment anything in
accordance with reason. With how many arguments can this trifling be
refuted! But I must proceed with my subject. This is he
"Who surpassed in intellect the race of man, and quenched the light of
all, as the ethereal sun arisen quenches the stars."(3)
Which verses I am never able to read without laughter. For this was not
said respecting Socrates or Plato, who are esteemed as kings of
philosophers, but concerning a man who, though of sound mind and
vigorous health, raved more senselessly than any one diseased. And thus
the most vain poet, I do not say adorned, but overwhelmed and crushed,
the mouse with the praises of the lion. But the same man also releases
us from the fear of death, respecting which these are his own exact
words:--
"When we are in existence, death does not exist; when death exists, we
have no existence: therefore death is nothing to us."
How cleverly he has deceived us! As though it were death now completed
which is an object of fear, by which sensation has been already taken
away, and not the very act of dying, by which sensation is being taken
from us. For there is a time in which we ourselves even yet(4) exist,
and death does not yet exist; and that very time appears to be
miserable, because death is beginning to exist, and we are ceasing to
exist.
Nor is it said without reason that death is not
miserable. The approach of death is miserable; that is, to waste away
by disease, to endure the thrust, to receive the weapon in the body, to
be burnt with fire, to be torn by the teeth of beasts. These are the
things which are feared, not because they bring death, but because they
bring great pain. But rather make out that pain is not an evil. He says
it is the greatest of all evils.
88
How therefore can I fail to fear, if that which precedes or brings
about death is an evil? Why should I say that the argument is false,
inasmuch as souls do not perish? But, he says, souls do perish; for
that which is born with the body must perish with the body. I have
already stated that I prefer to put off the discussion of this subject,
and to reserve it for the last part of my work, that I may refute this
persuasion of Epicurus, whether it was that of Democritus or
Dicaearchus, both by arguments and divine testimonies. But perhaps he
promised himself impunity in the indulgence of his vices; for he was an
advocate of most disgraceful pleasure, and said that man was born for
its enjoyment.(1) Who, when he hears this affirmed, would abstain from
the practice of vice and wickedness? For; if the soul is doomed to
perish, let us eagerly pursue riches, that we may be able to enjoy all
kinds of indulgence; and if these are wanting to us, let us take them
away from those who have them by stealth, by stratagem, or by force,
especially if there is no God who regards the actions of men: as long
as the hope of impunity shall favour us, let us plunder and put to
death.(2) For it is the part of the wise man to do evil, if it is
advantageous to him, and safe; since, if there is a God in heaven, He
is not angry with any one. It is also equally the part of the foolish
man to do good; because, as he is not excited with anger, so he is not
influenced by favour. Therefore let us live in the indulgence of
pleasures in every possible way; for in a short time we shall not exist
at all. Therefore let us suffer no day, in short, no moment of time, to
pass away from us without pleasure; lest, since we ourselves are doomed
to perish, the life which we have already spent should itself also
perish.
Although he does not say this in word, yet he
teaches it in fact. For when he maintains that the wise man does
everything for his own sake, he refers all things which he does to his
own advantage. And thus he who hears these disgraceful things, will
neither think that any good tiring ought to be done, since the
conferring of benefits has reference to the advantage of another; nor
that he ought to abstain from guilt, because the doing of evil is
attended with gain. If any chieftain of pirates or leader of robbers
were exhorting his men to acts of violence, what other language could
he employ than to say the same things which Epicurus says: that the
gods take no notice; that they are not affected with anger nor
kind feeling; that the punishment of a future state is not to be
dreaded, because souls die after
death, and that there is no future state of punishment at all; that
pleasure is the greatest good; that there is no society among men; that
every one consults for his own interest; that there is no one who loves
another, unless it be for his own sake; that death is not to be feared
by a brave man, nor any pain; for that he, even if he should be
tortured or burnt, should say that he does not regard it. There is
evidently sufficient cause why any one should regard this as the
expression of a wise man, since it can most fittingly be applied to
robbers!
CHAP. XVIII.--THE PYTHAGOREANS AND STOICS, WHILE THEY HOLD THE
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, FOOLISHLY PERSUADE A VOLUNTARY DEATH.
Others, again, discuss things contrary to these,
namely, that the soul survives after death; and these are chiefly the
Pythagoreans and Stoics. And although they are to be treated with
indulgence because they perceive the truth, yet I cannot but blame
them, because they fell upon the truth not by their opinion, but by
accident. And thus they erred in some degree even in that very matter
which they rightly perceived. For, since they feared the argument by
which it is inferred that the soul must necessarily die with the body,
because it is born with the body, they asserted that the soul is not
born with the body, but rather introduced into it, and that it migrates
from one body to another. They did not consider that it was possible
for the soul to survive the body, unless it should appear to have
existed previously to the body. There is therefore an equal and almost
similar error on each side. But the one side are deceived with respect
to the past, the other with respect to the future. For no one saw that
which is most true, that the soul is both created and does not die,
because they were ignorant why that came to pass, or what was the
nature of man. Many therefore of them, because they suspected that the
soul is immortal, laid violent hands upon themselves, as though they
were about to depart to heaven. Thus it was with Cleanthes(3) and
Chrysippus,(4) with Zeno,(5) and Empedocles,(6) who in the dead of
night cast himself into a cavity of the burning AEtna, that when he had
suddenly disappeared it might be believed that he had departed to the
gods; and thus also of the Romans Cato died, who through the
whole of his life was an imitator of Socratic
89
ostentation. For Democritus, was of another persuasion. But, however,
"By his own spontaneous act he offered up his head to death;"(2)
and nothing can be more wicked than this. For if a homicide is guilty
because he is a destroyer of man, he who puts himself to death is under
the same guilt, because he puts to death a man. Yea, that crime may be
considered to be greater, the punishment of which belongs to God alone.
For as we did not come into this life of our own accord; so, on the
other hand, we can only withdraw from this habitation of the body which
has been appointed for us to keep, by the command of Him who placed us
in this body that we may inhabit it, until He orders us to depart from
it; and if any violence is offered to us, we must endure it with
equanimity, since the death of an innocent person cannot be unavenged,
and since we have a great Judge who alone always has the power of
taking vengeance in His hands.
All these philosophers, therefore, were homicides;
and Cato himself, the chief of Roman wisdom, who, before he put himself
to death, is said to have read through the treatise of Plato which he
wrote on the immortality of the soul, and was led by the authority of
the philosopher to the commission of this great crime; yet he, however,
appears to have had some cause for death in his hatred of slavery. Why
should I speak of the Ambraciot,(3) who, having read the same treatise,
threw himself into the sea, for no other cause than that he believed
Plato?--a doctrine altogether detestable and to be avoided, if it
drives men from life. But if Plato had known and taught by whom, and
how, and to whom and on account of what actions, and at what time,
immortality is given, he would neither have driven Cleombrotus nor Cato
to a voluntary death, but he would have trained them to live with
justice. For it appears to me that Cato sought a cause for death, not
so much that he might escape from Caesar, as that he might obey the
decrees of the Stoics, whom he followed, and might make his name
distinguished by some great action; and I do not see what evil could
have happened to him if he had lived. For Caius Caesar, such was his
clemency, had no other object, even in the very heat of civil war, than
to appear to deserve well of the state, by preserving two excellent
citizens, Cicero and Cato. But let us return to those who praise death
as a benefit. You complain of life as though you had lived, or had ever
settled with yourself why you were born at all. May not therefore the
true and common Father of all justly find fault with that saying of
Terence:(4)--
"First, learn in what life consists; then, if you shall be dissatisfied
with life, have recourse to death."
You are indignant that you are exposed to evils; as though you deserved
anything good, who are ignorant of your Father. Lord, and King; who,
although you behold with your eyes the bright light, are nevertheless
blind in mind, and lie in the depths of the darkness of ignorance. And
this ignorance has caused that some have not been ashamed to say, that
we are born for this cause, that we may suffer the punishment of our
crimes; but I do not see what can be more senseless than this. For
where or what crimes could we have committed when we did not even
exist? Unless we shall happen to believe that foolish old man,(5) who
falsely said that he had lived before, and that in his former
life he had been Euphorbus. He, I believe, because he was
born of an ignoble race, chose for himself a family from the poems of
Homer. O wonderful and remarkable memory of Pythagoras! O miserable
forgetfulness on the part of us all, since we know not who we were in
our former life! But perhaps it was caused by some error, or favour,
that he alone did not touch the abyss of Lethe, or taste the water of
oblivion; doubtless the trifling old man (as is wont to be the case
with old women who are free from occupation) invented fables as it were
for credulous infants. But if he had thought well of those to whom he
spoke these things; if he had considered them to be men, he would never
have claimed to himself the liberty of uttering such perverse
falsehoods. But the folly of this most trifling man is deserving of
ridicule. What shall we do in the case of Cicero, who, having said in
the beginning of his Consolation that men were born for the sake of
atoning for their crimes, afterwards repeated the assertion, as though
rebuking him who does not imagine that life is a punishment? He was
right, therefore, in saying beforehand that he was held by error and
wretched ignorance of the truth.
CHAP. XIX.--CICERO AND OTHERS OF THE WISEST MEN TEACH THE
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, BUT IN AN UNBELIEVING MANNER; AND THAT A GOOD
OR AN EVIL DEATH MUST BE WEIGHED FROM THE PREVIOUS LIFE.
But those who assert the advantage of death, because
they know nothing of the truth, thus reason: If there is nothing after
death, death is
90
not an evil; for it takes away the perception of evil. But if the soul
survives, death is even an advantage; because immortality follows. And
this sentiment is thus set forth by Cicero concerning the Laws:(1) "We
may congratulate ourselves, since death is about to bring either a
better state than that which exists in life, or at any rate not a
worse. For if the soul is in a state of vigour without the body, it is
a divine life; and if it is without perception, assuredly there is no
evil." Cleverly argued, as it appeared to himself, as though there
could be no other state. But each conclusion is false. For the sacred
writings(2) teach that the soul is not annihilated; but that it is
either rewarded according to its righteousness, or eternally punished
according to its crimes. For neither is it right, that he who has lived
a life of wickedness in prosperity should escape the punishment which
he deserves; nor that he who has been wretched on account of his
righteousness, should be deprived of his reward. And this is so true,
that Tully also, in his Consolation, declared that the righteous and
the wicked do not inhabit the same abodes. For those same wise men, he
says, did not judge that the same course was open for all into the
heaven; for they taught that those who were contaminated by vices and
crimes were thrust down into darkness, and lay in the mire; but that,
on the other hand, souls that were chaste, pure, upright, and
uncontaminated, being also refined by the study and practice of virtue,
by a light and easy course take their flight to the gods, that is, to a
nature resembling their own. But this sentiment is posed to the former
argument. For that is based on the assumption that every man at his
birth is presented with immortality. What distinction, therefore, will
there be between virtue and guilt, if it makes no difference whether a
man be Aristides or Phalaris, whether he be Cato or Catiline? But a man
does not perceive this opposition between sentiments and actions,
unless he is in possession of the truth. If any one, therefore, should
ask me whether death is a good or an evil, I shall reply that its
character depends upon the course of the life. For as life itself is a
good if it is passed virtuously, but an evil if it is spent viciously,
so also death is to be weighed in accordance with the past actions of
life. And so it comes to pass, that if life has been passed in the
service of God, death is not an evil, for it is a translation to
immortality. But if not so, death must necessarily be an evil, since it
transfers men, as I have said, to everlasting punishment.(3)
What, then, shall we say, but that they are in error
who either desire death as a good, or flee from life as an evil? unless
they are most unjust, who do not weigh the fewer evils against the
greater number of blessings. For when they pass all their lives in a
variety of the choicest gratifications, if any bitterness has chanced
to succeed to these, they desire to die; and they so regard it as to
appear never to have fared well, if at any time they happen to fare
ill. Therefore they condemn the whole of life, and consider it as
nothing else than filled with evils. Hence arose that foolish
sentiment, that this state which we imagine to be life is death, and
that that which we fear as death is life; and so that the first good is
not to be born, that the second is an early death. And that this
sentiment may be of greater weight, it is attributed to Silenus.(4)
Cicero in his Consolation says: "Not to be born is by far the best
thing, and not to fall upon these rocks of life. But the next thing is,
if you have been born, to die as soon as possible, and to flee from the
violence of fortune as from a conflagration." That he believed this
most foolish expression appears from this, that he added something of
his own for its embellishment. I ask, therefore, for whom he thinks it
best not to be born, when there is no one at all who has any
perception; for it is the perception which causes anything to be good
or bad. In the next place, why did he regard the whole of life as
nothing else than rocks, and a conflagration; as though it were either
in our power not to be born, or life were given to us by fortune, and
not by God, or as though the course of life appeared to bear any
resemblance to a conflagration? The saying of Plato is not dissimilar,
that he gave thanks to nature, first that he was born a human being
rather than a dumb animal; in the next place, that he was a man rather
than a woman; that he was a Greek rather than a barbarian;(5) lastly,
that he was an Athenian, and that he was born in the time of Socrates.
It is impossible to say what great blindness and errors are produced by
ignorance of the truth would altogether contend that nothing in the
affairs of men was ever spoken more foolishly. As though, if he had
been born a barbarian, or a woman, or, in fine, an ass, he would be the
same Plato, and not that very being which had been produced. But he
evidently believed Pythagoras, who, in order that he might prevent men
from feeding on animals, said that souls passed from the bodies of men
to the bodies of other animals; which is both foolish and impossible.
It is foolish, because it was unnecessary to introduce souls that have
long existed into new bod
91
ies, when the same Artificer who at one time had made the first, was
always able to make fresh ones; it is impossible, because the soul
endued with right reason can no more change the nature of its
condition, than fire can rush downwards, or, like a river, pour its
flame obliquely.(1) The wise man therefore imagined, that it might come
to pass that the soul which was then in Plato might be shut up in some
other animal, and might be endued with the sensibility of a man, so as
to understand and grieve that it was burthened with an incongruous
body. How much more rationally would he have acted, if he had said that
he gave thanks because he was born with a good capacity, and capable of
receiving instruction, and that he was possessed of those resources
which enabled him to receive a liberal education! For what benefit was
it that he was born at Athens? Have not many men of distinguished
talent and learning lived in other cities, who were better individually
than all the Athenians? How many thousands must we believe that there
were, who, though born at Athens, and in the times of Socrates, were
nevertheless unlearned and foolish? For it is not the walls or the
place in which any one was born that can invest a man with wisdom. Of
what avail was it to congratulate himself that he was born in the times
of Socrates? Was Socrates able to supply talent to learners? It did not
occur to Plato that Alcibiades also, and Critias, were constant hearers
of the same Socrates, the one of whom was the most active enemy of his
country, the other the most cruel of all tyrants.
CHAP. XX.--SOCRATES HAD MORE KNOWLEDGE IN PHILOSOPHY THAN OTHER MEN,
ALTHOUGH IN MANY THINGS HE ACTED FOOLISHLY.
Let us now see what there was so great in Socrates
himself, that a wise man deservedly gave thanks that he was born in his
times. I do not deny that he was a little more sagacious than the
others who thought that the nature of things could be comprehended by
the mind. And in this I judge that they were not only senseless,
but also impious; because they wished to send their inquisitive eyes
into the secrets of that heavenly providence. We know that there are at
Rome, and in many cities, certain sacred things which it is considered
impious for men to look upon. Therefore they who are not permitted to
pollute those objects abstain from looking upon them; and if by error
or some accident a man has happened to see them, his guilt is expiated
first by his punishment, and afterwards by a repetition of sacrifice.
What can you do in the case of those who wish to pry into unpermitted
things? Truly they are much more wicked who seek to profane the secrets
of the world and this heavenly temple with impious disputations, than
those who entered the temple of Vesta, or the Good Goddess, or Ceres.
And these shrines, though it is not lawful for men to approach them,
were yet constructed by men. But these men not only escape the charge
of impiety, but, that which is much more unbecoming, they gain the fame
of eloquence and the glory of talent. What if they were able to
investigate anything? For they are as foolish in asserting as they are
wicked in searching out; since they are neither able to find out
anything, nor, even if they had found out anything, to defend it. For
if even by chance they have seen the truth--a thing which often
happens--they so act that it is refuted by others as false. For no one
descends from heaven to pass sentence on the opinions of individuals;
wherefore no one can doubt that those who seek after these things are
foolish, senseless, and insane.
Socrates therefore had something of human wisdom,(2)
who, when he understood that these things could not possibly be
ascertained, removed himself from questions of this kind; but I fear
that he so acted in this alone. For many of his actions are not only
undeserving of praise, but also most deserving of censure, in which
things he most resembled those of his own class. Out of these I will
select one which may be judged of by all. Socrates used this well-known
proverb: "That which is above us is nothing to us." Let us therefore
fall down upon the earth, and use as feet those hands which have been
given us for the production of excellent works. The heaven is nothing
to us, to the contemplation of which we have been raised;(3) in fine,
the light itself can have no reference to us; undoubtedly the cause of
our sustenance is from heaven. But if he perceived this, that we ought
not to discuss the nature of heavenly things, he was unable even to
comprehend the nature of those things which he had beneath his feet.
What then? did he err in his words? It is not probable; but he
undoubtedly meant that which he said, that we are not to devote
ourselves to religion; but if he were openly to say this, no one would
suffer it.
For who cannot perceive that this world, completed
with such wonderful method, is governed by some providence, since there
is nothing which can exist without some one to direct it? Thus, a house
deserted by its inhabitant fails to decay; a ship without a pilot goes
to the bottom; and a body abandoned by the soul wastes away. Much less
can we suppose that so great a fabric could either have been
constructed without an
92
Artificer, or have existed so long without a Ruler. But if he wished to
overthrow those public superstitions, I do not disapprove of this; yea,
I shall rather praise it, if he shall have found anything better to
take their place. But the same man swore(1) by a dog and a goose. Oh
buffoon (as Zeno the Epicurean(2) says), senseless, abandoned,
desperate man, if he wished to scoff at religion; madman, if he did
this seriously, so as to esteem a most base animal as God! For who can
dare to find fault with the superstitions oft the Egyptians, when
Socrates confirmed them at Athens by his authority? But was it not a
mark of consummate vanity, that before his death he asked his friends
to sacrifice for him a cock which he had vowed to AEsculapius? He
evidently feared lest he should be put upon his trial before
Rhadamanthus, the judge, by AEsculapius on account of the vow. I should
consider him most mad if he had died under the influence of disease.
But since he did this in his sound mind, he who thinks that he was wise
is himself of unsound mind. Behold one in whose times the wise man
congratulates himself as having been born!
CHAP. XXI.--OF THE SYSTEM OF PLATO, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THE OVERTHROW
OF STATES.
Let us, however, see what it was that he learned
from Socrates, who, having entirely rejected natural philosophy, betook
himself to inquiries about virtue and duty. And thus I do not doubt
that he instructed his hearers in the precepts of justice. Therefore,
under the teaching of Socrates, it did not escape the notice of Plato,
that the force of justice consists in equality, since all are born in
an equal condition. Therefore (he says) they must have nothing private
or their own; but that they may be equal, as the method of justice
requires, they must possess all things in common. This is capable of
being endured, as long as it appears to be spoken of money. But how
impossible and how unjust this is, I could show by many things. Let us,
however, admit its possibility. For grant that nil arc wise, and
despise money. To what, then, did that community lead him? Marriages
also, be says, ought to be in common; so that many men may flock
together like dogs to the same woman, and he who shall be superior in
strength may succeed in obtaining her; or if they are patient as
philosophers, they may await their turns, as in a brothel. Oh the
wonderful equality of Plato! Where, then, is the virtue of
chastity? where conjugal fidelity?
And if you take away these, all justice is taken away. But he also says
that states would be prosperous, if either philosophers were their
kings, or their kings were philosophers. But if you were to give the
sovereignty to this man of such justice and equity, who had deprived
some of their own property, and given to some the property of others,
he would prostitute the modesty of women; a thing which was never done,
I do not say by a king, but not even by a tyrant.
But what motive did he advance for this most
degrading advice? The state will be in harmony, and bound together with
the bonds of mutual love, if all shall be the husbands, and fathers,
and wives, and children of all. What a confusion of the human race is
this? How is it possible for affection to be preserved where there is
nothing certain to be loved? What man will love a woman, or what woman
a man, unless they shall always have lived together,--unless
devotedness of mind, and faith mutually preserved, shall have made
their love indivisible? But this virtue has no place in that
promiscuous pleasure. Moreover, if all are the children of all, who
will be able to love children as his own, when he is either ignorant or
in doubt whether they are his own? Who will bestow honour upon any one
as a father, when he does not know from whom he was born? From which it
comes to pass, that he not only esteems a stranger as a father, but
also a father as a stranger. Why should I say that it is possible for a
wife to be common, but impossible for a son, who cannot be conceived
except from one? The community, therefore, is lost to him alone, nature
herself crying out against it. It remains that it is only for the sake
of concord that he would have a community of wives. But there is no
more vehement cause of discords, than the desire of one woman by many
men. And in this Plato might have been admonished, if not by reason,
yet certainly by example, both of the dumb animals, which fight most
vehemently on this account, and of men, who have always carried on most
severe wars with one another on account of this matter.
CHAP. XXII.--OF THE PRECEPTS OF PLATO, AND CENSURES OF THE
SAME.
It remains that the community of which we have
spoken admits of nothing else but adulteries and lusts, for the utter
extinction of which virtue is especially necessary. Therefore he did
not find the concord which he sought, because he did not see whence it
arises. For justice has no weight in outward circumstances, not even in
the body,(3) but it is altogether employed on the mind of man. He,
therefore, who wishes to
93
place men on an equality, ought not to take away marriage and wealth,
but arrogance, pride, and haughtiness, that those who are powerful and
lifted up on high may know that they are on a level even with the most
needy. For insolence and injustice being taken from the rich, it will
make no difference whether some are rich and others poor, since they
will be equal in spirit, and nothing but reverence towards God can
produce this result. He thought, therefore, that he had found justice,
whereas he had altogether removed it, because it ought not to be a
community of perishable things, but of minds. For if justice is the
mother(1) of all virtues, when they are severally taken away, it is
also itself overthrown. But Plato took away above all things frugality,
which has no existence when there is no property of one's own which can
be possessed; he took away abstinence, since there will be nothing
belonging to another from which one can abstain; he took away
temperance and chastity, which are the greatest virtues in each sex; he
took away self-respect, shame, and modesty, if those things which are
accustomed to be judged base and disgraceful begin to be accounted
honourable and lawful. Thus, while he wishes to confer virtue upon all,
he takes it away from all. For the ownership of property contains the
material both of vices and of virtues, but a community of goods
contains nothing else than the licentiousness of vices. For men who
have many mistresses can be called nothing else than luxurious and
prodigal. And likewise women who are in the possession of many men,
must of necessity be not adulteresses, because they have no fixed
marriage, but prostitutes and harlots. Therefore he reduced human life,
I do not say to the likeness of dumb animals, but of the herds and
brutes. For almost all the birds contract marriages, and are united in
pairs, and defend their nests, as though their marriage-beds, with
harmonious mind, and cherish their own young, because they are well
known to them; and if you put others in their way, they repel them. But
this wise man, contrary to the custom of men, and contrary to nature,
chose more foolish objects of imitation; and since he saw that the
duties of males and females were not separated in the case of other
animals, he thought that women also ought to engage in warfare, and
take a share in the public counsels, and undertake magistracies, and
assume commands. And therefore he assigned to them horses and arms: it
follows that he should have assigned to men wool and the loom, and the
carrying of infants. Nor did he see the impossibility of what he said,
from the fact that no nation has existed in the world so foolish or so
vain as to live in this manner.(2)
CHAP. XXIII.--OF THE ERRORS OF CERTAIN PHILOSOPHERS, AND OF THE SUN AND
MOON.
Since, therefore, the leading men among the
philosophers are themselves discovered to be of such emptiness, what
shall we think of those lesser s ones, who are accustomed never to
appear to themselves so wise, as when they boast of their contempt of
money? Brave spirit! But I wait to see their conduct, and what are the
results of that contempt. They avoid as an evil, and abandon the
property handed down to them from their parents. And lest they should
suffer shipwreck in a storm, they plunge headlong of their own accord
in a cairn, being resolute not by virtue, but by perverse fear; as
those who, through fear of being slain by the enemy, slay themselves,
that by death they may avoid death. So these men, without honour and
without influence, throw away the means by which they might have
acquired the glory of liberality. Democritus is praised because he
abandoned his fields, and suffered them to become public pastures. I
should approve of it, if he had given them. But nothing is done wisely
which is useless and evil if it is done by all. But this negligence is
tolerable. What shall I say of him who changed his possessions into
money, which he threw into the sea? I doubt whether he was in his
senses, or deranged. Away, he says, ye evil desires, into the deep. I
will cast you away, lest I myself should be cast away by you. If you
have so great a contempt for money, employ it in acts of kindness and
humanity, bestow it upon the poor; this, which you are about to throw
away, may be a succour to many, so that they may not die through
famine, or thirst, or nakedness. Imitate at least the madness and fury
of Tuditanus;(4) scatter abroad your property to be seized by the
people. You have it in your power both to escape the possession of
money, and yet to lay it out to advantage; for whatever has been
profitable to many is securely laid out.
But who approves of the equality of faults as laid
down by Zeno? But let us omit that which is always received with
derision by all. This is sufficient to prove the error of this madman,
that he places pity among vices and diseases. He deprives us of an
affection, which involves almost the whole course of human life. For
since the nature of man is more feeble than that of the other animals,
which divine provi-
94
dence has armed with natural means of protection,(1) either to endure
the severity of the seasons or to ward off attacks from their bodies,
because none of these things has been given to man, he has received in
the place of all these things the affection of pity, which is truly
called humanity, by which we might mutually protect each other. For if
a man were rendered savage by the sight of another man, which we see
happen in the case of those animals which are of a solitary(2) nature,
there would be no society among men, no care or system in the building
of cities; and thus life would not even be safe, since the weakness of
men would both be exposed to the attacks of the other animals, and they
would rage among themselves after the manner of wild beasts. Nor is his
madness less in other things.
For what can be said respecting him who asserted
that snow was black? How naturally it followed, that he should also
assert that pitch was white! This is he who said that he was born for
this purpose, that he might behold the heaven and the sun, who beheld
nothing on the earth when the sun was shining. Xenophanes most
foolishly believed mathematicians who said that the orb of the moon was
eighteen times larger than the earth; and, as was consistent with this
folly, he said that within the concave surface of the moon there was
another earth, and that there another race of men live in a similar
manner to that in which we live on this earth. Therefore these lunatics
have another moon, to hold forth to them a light by night, as this does
to us. And perhaps this globe of ours may be a moon to another earth
below this.(3) Seneca says that there was one among the Stoics who used
to deliberate whether he should assign to the sun also its own
inhabitants; he acted foolishly in doubting. For what injury would he
have inflicted if he had assigned them? But I believe the heat deterred
him, so as not to imperil so great a multitude; lest, if they should
perish through excessive heat, so great a calamity should be said to
have happened by his fault.
CHAP. XXIV.--OF THE ANTIPODES, THE HEAVEN,
AND THE STARS.
How is it with those who imagine that there are
antipodes(4) opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the
purpose? Or is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are
men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? or that the things
which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an
inverted direction? that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the
rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? And does any one
wonder that hanging gardens s are mentioned among the seven wonders of
the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and seas, and cities,
and mountains? The origin of this error must also be set forth by us.
For they are always deceived in the same manner. For when they have
assumed anything false in the commencement of their investigations, led
by the resemblance of the truth, they necessarily fall into those
things which are its consequences. Thus they fall into many ridiculous
things; because those things which are in agreement with false things,
must themselves be false. But since they placed confidence in the
first, they do not consider the character of those things which follow,
but defend them in every way; whereas they ought to judge from those
which follow, whether the first are true or false.
What course of argument, therefore, led them to the
idea of the antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling
towards the west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards
the same quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not
perceive what contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they
returned from the west to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself
sloped downwards in every direction, which appearance it must present
on account of its immense breadth, they thought that the world is round
like a ball, and they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance
with the motion of the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and
sun, when they have set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the
world(6) are borne back to the east. Therefore they both constructed
brazen orbs, as though after the figure of the world, and engraved upon
them certain monstrous images, which they said were constellations. It
followed, therefore, from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth
was enclosed in the midst of its curved surface. But if this were so,
the earth also itself must be like a globe; for that could not possibly
be anything but round, which was held enclosed by that which was round.
But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it
should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is.
that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level
seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that
there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other
animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the
invention of those suspended antipodes.
95
But if you inquire from those who defend these
marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of
the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that
heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined
together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the
bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from
the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say
respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere
in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I
sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a
jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if
to exercise or display their talents on false subjects. But I should be
able to prove by many arguments that it is impossible for the heaven to
be lower than the earth, were is not that this book must now be
concluded, and that some things still remain, which are more
necessary for the present work. And since it is not the work of a
single book to run over the errors of each individually, let it
be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the
others may be understood.
CHAP. XXV.--OF LEARNING PHILOSOPHY, AND WHAT GREAT QUALIFICATIONS ARE
NECESSARY FOR ITS PURSUIT.
We must now speak a few things concerning philosophy
in general, that having strengthened our cause we may conclude. That
greatest imitator of Plato among our writers thought that philosophy
was not for the multitude, because none but learned men could attain to
it. "Philosophy," says Cicero,(1) "is contented with a few judges, of
its own accord designedly avoiding the multitude." It is not therefore
wisdom, if it avoids the concourse of men; since, if wisdom is given to
man, it is given to all without any distinction, so that there is no
one at all who cannot acquire it. But they so embrace virtue, which is
given to the human race, that they alone of all appear to wish to enjoy
that which is a public good; being as envious as if they should wish to
bind or tear out the eyes of others that they may not see the sun. For
what else is it to deny wisdom to men, than to take away from their
minds the true and divine light? But if the nature of man is capable of
wisdom, it was befitting that both workmen, and country people, and
women, and all, in short, who bear the human form, should be taught to
he wise; and that the people should be brought together from every
language, and condition, and sex, and age. Therefore it is a very
strong argument that philosophy neither tends to wisdom, nor is
of itself wisdom, that its mystery is only made known by the beard and
cloak of the philosophers.(2) The Stoics, moreover, perceived this, who
said that philosophy was to be studied both by slaves and women;
Epicurus also, who invites those who are altogether unacquainted with
letters to philosophy; and Plato also, who wished to compose a state of
wise men.
They attempted, indeed, to do that which truth
required; but they were unable to proceed beyond words. First, because
instruction in many arts is necessary for an application to philosophy.
Common learning must be acquired on account of practice in reading,
because in so great a variety of subjects it is impossible that all
things should be learned by hearing, or retained in the memory. No
little attention also must be given to the grammarians, in order that
you may know the right method of speaking. That must occupy many years.
Nor must there be ignorance of rhetoric, that you may be able to utter
and express the things which you have learned. Geometry also, and
music, and astronomy, are necessary, because these arts have some
connection with philosophy; and the whole of these subjects cannot be
learned by women, who must learn within the years of their maturity the
duties which are hereafter about to be of service to them for domestic
uses; nor by servants, who must live in service during those years
especially in which they are able to learn; nor by the poor, or
labourers, or rustics, who have to gain their daily support by labour.
And on this account Tully says that philosophy is averse from the
multitude. But yet Epicurus will receive the ignorant.(3) How, then,
will they understand those things which are said respecting the first
principles of things, the perplexities and intricacies of which are
scarcely attained to by men of cultivated minds?
Therefore, in subjects which are involved in
obscurity, and confused by a variety of intellects, and set off by the
studied language of eloquent men, what place is there for the unskilful
and ignorant? Lastly, they never taught any women to study philosophy,
except Themiste(4) only, within the whole memory of man; nor slaves,
except Phaedo(5) only, who is said, when living in oppressive slavery,
to have been ransomed and taught by Cebes. They also enumerate Plato
and Diogenes: these, however, were not slaves, though they had fallen
into servitude, for they
96
had been taken captive. A certain Aniceris is said to have ransomed
Plato for eight sesterces. And on this account Seneca severely rebuked
the ransomer himself, because he set so small value upon Plato. He was
a madman, as it seems to me, who was angry with a man because he did
not throw away much money; doubtless he ought to have weighed gold as
though to ransom the corpse of Hector, or to have insisted upon the
payment of more money than the seller demanded. Moreover, they taught
none of the barbarians, with the single exception of Anacharsis the
Scythian, who never would have dreamed of philosophy had he not
previously learned both language and literature.
CHAP. XXVI.--IT IS DIVINE INSTRUCTION ONLY WHICH BESTOWS WISDOM; AND OF
WHAT EFFICACY THE LAW OF GOD IS.
That, therefore, which they perceived to be justly
required by the demands of nature, but which they were themselves
unable to perform, and saw that the philosophers could not effect, is
accomplished only by divine instruction; for that only is wisdom.
Doubtless they were able to persuade any one who do not even persuade
themselves of anything; or they will crush the desires, moderate the
anger, and restrain the lusts of any one, when they themselves both
yield to vices, and acknowledge that they are overpowered by nature.
But what influence is exerted on the souls of men by the precepts of
God, because of their simplicity and truth, is shown by daily proofs.
Give me a man who is passionate, scurrilous, and unrestrained; with a
very few words of God,
"I will render him as gentle as a sheep."(1)
Give me one who is grasping, covetous, and tenacious; I will presently
restore him to you liberal, and freely bestowing his money with full
hands. Give me a man who is afraid of pain and death; he shall
presently despise crosses, and fires, and the bull of Phalaris.(2) Give
me one who is lustful, an adulterer a glutton; you shall presently see
him sober, chaste, and temperate. Give me one who is cruel and
bloodthirsty: that fury shall presently be changed into true clemency.
Give me a man who is unjust, foolish, an evil-doer; forthwith he shall
be just, and wise, and innocent for by one laver(3) all his
wickedness shall be taken away. So great is the power of divine wisdom,
that, when infused into the breast of man, by one impulse it once for
all expels folly, which is the mother of faults, for the
effecting of which there is no need of payment, or books, or nightly
studies. These results are accomplished gratuitously, easily, and
quickly, if only the ears are open and the breast thirsts for wisdom.
Let no one fear: we do not sell water, nor offer the sun for a reward.
The fountain of God, most abundant and most full, is open to all; and
this heavenly light rises for all,(4) as many as have eyes. Did any of
the philosophers effect these things, or is he able to effect them if
he wishes? For though they spend their lives in the study of
philosophy, they are neither able to improve any other person nor
themselves (if nature has presented any obstacle). Therefore their
wisdom, doing its utmost, does not eradicate, but hide vices. But a few
precepts of God so entirely change the whole man, and having put off
the old man, render him new, that you would not recognise him as the
same.
CHAP. XXVII.--HOW LITTLE THE PRECEPTS OF PHILOSOPHERS CONTRIBUTE TO
TRUE WISDOM. WHICH YOU WILL FIND IN RELIGION ONLY.
What, then? Do they enjoin nothing similar? Yes,
indeed, many things; and they frequently approach the truth. But those
precepts have no weight, because they are human, and are without a
greater, that is, that divine authority. No one therefore believes
them, because the hearer imagines himself to be a man, just as he is,
who enjoins them. Moreover, there is no certainty with them, nothing
which proceeds from knowledge. But since all things are done by
conjecture, and many differing and various things are brought forward,
it is the part of a most foolish man to be willing to obey their
precepts. since it is doubted whether they are true or false; and
therefore no one obeys them, because no one wishes to labour for an
uncertainty. The Stoics say that it is virtue which can alone produce a
happy life. Nothing can be said with greater truth. But what if he
shall be tormented, or afflicted with pain? Will it be possible for any
one to be happy in the hands of the executioners? But truly pain
inflicted upon the body is the material of virtue; therefore he is not
wretched even in tortures. Epicurus speaks much more strongly. The wise
man, he says, is always happy; and even when shut up in the bull of
Phalaris he will utter this speech: "It is pleasant, and I do not care
for it." Who would not laugh at him? Especially, because a man who is
devoted to pleasure took upon himself the character of a man of
fortitude, and that to an immoderate degree; for it is impossible that
any one should esteem tortures of the body as pleasures, since it is
sufficient for discharging the office of virtue that one sustains and
endures them. What do you, Stoics, say? What do
97
you, Epicurus? The wise man is happy even when be is tortured. If it is
on account of the glory of his endurance, he will not enjoy it, for
perchance he will die under the tortures. If it is on account of the
recollection of the deed, either he will not perceive it if souls shall
perish, or, if he shall perceive it, he will gain nothing from it.
What other advantage is there then in virtue? what
happiness of life? Is it that a man may die with equanimity? You
present to me the advantage of a single hour, or perhaps moment, for
the sake of which it may not be expedient to be worn out by miseries
and labours throughout the whole of life. But how much time does death
occupy? on the arrival of which it now makes no difference whether you
shall have undergone it with equanimity or not. Thus it happens that
nothing is sought from virtue but glory. But this is either superfluous
and short-lived, or it will not follow from the depraved judgments of
men. Therefore there is no fruit from virtue where virtue is subject to
death and decay. Therefore they who said these things saw a certain
shadow(1) of virtue: they did not see virtue itself. For they had their
eyes fixed on the earth, nor did they raise their countenances on high
that they might behold her
"Who showed herself from the quarters of heaven."(2)
This is the reason why no one obeys their precepts; inasmuch as they
either train men to vices, if they defend pleasure; or if they uphold
virtue, they neither threaten sin with any punishment, except that of
disgrace only, nor do they promise any reward to virtue, except that of
honour and praise only, since they say that virtue is to be sought for
its own sake, and not on account of any other object. The wise man
therefore is happy under tortures; but when he suffers torture on
account of his faith, on account of justice, or on account of God, that
endurance of pain will render him most happy. For it is God alone who
can honour virtue, the reward of which is immortality alone. And they
who do not seek this, nor possess religion, with which eternal life is
connected, assuredly do not know the power of virtue, the reward of
which they are ignorant; nor look towards heaven, as they themselves
imagine that they do, when they inquire into subjects which do not
admit of investigation, since there is no other cause for looking
towards heaven, unless it be either to undertake religion, or to
believe that one's soul is immortal. For if any one understands that
God is to be worshipped, or has the hope of immortality set before him,
his mind(3) is in heaven; and although he may not behold it with his
eyes, yet he does behold it with the eye of his soul. But they who do
not take up religion are of the earth, for religion is from heaven; and
they who think that the soul perishes together with the body, equally
look down towards the earth: for beyond the body, which is earth, they
see nothing further, which is immortal. It is therefore of no profit
that man is so made, that with upright body he looks towards heaven,
unless with mind raised aloft he discerns God, and his thoughts are
altogether engaged upon the hope of everlasting life.
CHAP. XXVIII.--OF TRUE RELIGION AND OF NATURE. WHETHER FORTUNE IS A
GODDESS, AND OF PHILOSOPHY.
Wherefore there is nothing else in life on which our
plan and condition can depend but the knowledge of God who created us,
and the religious and pious worship of Him; and since the philosophers
have wandered from this, it is plain that they were not wise. They
sought wis-dom, indeed; but because they did not seek it in a right
manner, they sunk down to a greater distance, and fell into such great
errors, that they did not even possess common wisdom. For they were not
only unwilling to maintain religion, but they even took it away; while,
led on by the appearance of false virtue, they endeavour to free the
mind from all fear: and this overturning of religion gains the name of
nature. For they, either being ignorant by whom the world was made, or
wishing to persuade men that nothing was completed by divine
intelligence, said that nature was the mother of all things, as though
they should say that all things were produced of their own accord: by
which word they altogether confess their own ignorance. For nature,
apart from divine providence and power, is absolutely nothing. But if
they call God nature, what perverseness is it, to use the name of
nature rather than of God!(4) But if nature is the plan, or necessity,
or condition of birth, it is not by itself capable of sensation; but
there must necessarily be a divine mind, which by its foresight
furnishes the beginning of their existence to all things. Or if nature
is heaven and earth. and everything which is created. nature is not
God, but the work of God.
By a similar error they believe in the existence of
fortune, as a goddess mocking the affairs of then with various
casualties, because they know not from what source things good and evil
hap-
98
pen to them. They think that they are brought together to do battle
with her; nor do they assign any reason by whom and on what account
they are thus matched; but they only boast that they are every moment
carrying on a contest for life and death with fortune. Now, as many as
have consoled any persons on account of the death and removal of
friends, have censured the name of fortune with the most severe
accusations; nor is there any disputation of theirs on the subject of
virtue, in which fortune is not harassed. M. Tullius, in his
Consolation, says that he has always fought against fortune, and that
she was always overpowered by him when he had valiantly beaten back the
attacks of his enemies; that he was not subdued by her even then, when
he was driven from his home and deprived of his country; but then, when
he lost his dearest daughter, he shamefully confesses that he is
overcome by fortune. I yield, he says, and raise my hand.(1) What is
more wretched than this man, who thus lies prostrate? He acts
foolishly, he says; but it is one who professes that he is wise. What,
then, does the assumption of the name imply? What that contempt of
things which is laid claim to with magnificent words? What that dress,
so different from others? Or why do you give precepts of wisdom at all,
if no one has yet been found who is wise? And does any one bear
ill-will to us because we deny that philosophers are wise, when they
themselves confess that they neither have knowledge nor wisdom?
For if at any time they have so failed that they are not even able to
feign anything, as their practice is in other cases, then in truth they
are reminded of their ignorance; and, as though in madness, they spring
up and exclaim that they are blind and foolish. Anaxagoras pronounces
that all things are overspread with darkness. Empedocles complains that
the paths of the senses are narrow, as though for his reflections he
had need of a chariot and four horses. Democritus says that the truth
lies sunk in a well so deep that it has no bottom; foolishly, indeed,
as he says other things. For the truth is not, as it were, sunk in a
well to which it was permitted him to descend, or even to fall, but, as
it were, placed on the highest top of a lofty mountain, or in heaven,
which is most true. For what reason is there why he should say that it
is sunk below rather than that it is raised aloft? unless by chance he
preferred to place the mind also in the feet, or in the bottom of the
heels, rather than in the breast or in the head.
So widely removed were they from the truth itself,
that even the posture of their own body did not admonish them, that the
truth must be sought for by them in the highest place.(2) From this
despair arose that confession of Socrates, in which he said that he
knew nothing but this one thing alone, that he knew nothing. From this
flowed the system of the Academy, if that is to be called a system in
which ignorance is both learnt and taught. But not even those who
claimed for themselves knowledge were able consistently to defend that
very thing which they thought that they knew. For since they were not
in agreement(3) with one another, through their ignorance of divine
things they were so inconsistent and uncertain, and often asserting
things contrary to one another, that you are unable to determine and
decide what their meaning was. Why therefore should you fight against
those men who perish by their own sword? Why should you labour to
refute those whom their own speech refutes and presses?(4) Aristotle,
says Cicero, accusing the ancient philosophers, declares that they are
either most foolish or most vainglorious, since they thought that
philosophy was perfected by their talents; but that he saw, because a
great addition had been made in a few years, that philosophy would be
complete in a short time. What, then, was that time? In what manner,
when, or by whom, was philosophy completed? For that which he said,
that they were most foolish in supposing that philosophy was made
perfect by their talents, is true; but he did not even himself speak
with sufficient discretion, who thought that it had either been begun
by the ancients, or increased by those who were more recent, or that it
would shortly be brought to perfection by those of later times. For
that can never be investigated which is not sought by its own way.
CHAP. XXIX.--OF FORTUNE AGAIN, AND VIRTUE.
But let us return to the subject which we laid
aside. Fortune, therefore, by itself, is nothing; nor must we so regard
it as though it had any perception, since fortune is the sudden and
unexpected occurrence of accidents. But philosophers, that they may not
sometimes fail to err, wish to be wise in a foolish matter; and say
that she is not a goddess, as is generally believed, but a god.
Sometimes, however, they call this god nature, sometimes fortune,
"because he brings about," says the same Cicero, "many things
unexpected by us, on account of our want of intelligence and our
ignorance of causes." Since, therefore, they are ignorant of the causes
on account of which anything is done, they must also be ignorant of him
who does them. The
99
same writer, in a work of great seriousness, in which he was giving to
his son precepts of life drawn from philosophy, says, "Who can be
ignorant that the power of fortune is great on either side? For both
when we meet with a prosperous breeze from her we gain the issues which
we desire, and when she has breathed contrary to us we are dashed on
the rocks."(1) First of all, he who says that nothing can be known,
spoke this as though he himself and all men had knowledge. Then he who
endeavours to render doubtful even the things which are plain, thought
that this was plain, which ought to have been to him especially
doubtful; for to a wise man it is altogether false. Who, he says, knows
not? I indeed know not. Let him teach me, if he can, what that
power is, what that breeze, and what the contrary breath. It is
disgraceful, therefore, for a man of talent to say that, which if you
were to deny it, he would be unable to prove. Lastly, he who says that
the assent must be withheld because it is the part of a foolish man
rashly to assent to things which are unknown to him, he, I say,
altogether believed the opinions of the vulgar and uninstructed, who
think that it is fortune which gives to men good and evil things. For
they represent her image with the horn of plenty and with a rudder, as
though she both gave wealth and had the government of human affairs.
And to this opinion Virgil(2) assented, who calls fortune omnipotent;
and the historian(3) who says, But assuredly fortune bears sway in
everything. What place, then, remains for the other gods? Why is she
not said to reign by herself, if she has more power than others; or why
is she not alone worshipped, if she has power in all things? Or if she
inflicts evils only, let them bring forward some cause why, if she is a
goddess, she envies men, and desires their destruction, though she is
religiously worshipped by them; why she is more favourable to the
wicked and more unfavourable to the good; why she plots, afflicts,
deceives, exterminates; who appointed her as the perpetual harasser of
the race of men; why, in short, she has obtained so mischievous a
power, that she renders all things illustrious or obscure according to
her caprice rather than in accordance with the truth. Philosophers, I
say, ought rather to have inquired into these things, than rashly to
have accused fortune, who is innocent: for although she has some
existence, yet no reason can be brought forward by them why she should
be as hostile to men as she is supposed to be. Therefore all those
speeches in which they rail at the injustice of fortune, and in
opposition to fortune arrogantly boast of their own virtues, are
nothing else but the ravings of thoughtless levity.
Wherefore let them not envy us, to whom God has
revealed the truth: who, as we know that fortune is nothing, so also
know that there is a wicked and crafty spirit who is unfriendly to the
good, and the enemy of righteousness, who acts in opposition to God;
the cause of whose enmity we have explained in the second book.(4) He
therefore lays plots against all; but those who are ignorant of God he
hinders by error, he overwhelms with folly, he overspreads with
darkness, that no one may be able to attain to the knowledge of the
divine name, in which alone are contained both wisdom and
everlasting life. Those, on the other hand, who know God, he assails
with wiles and craft, that he may ensnare them with desire and lust,
and when they are corrupted by the blandishments of sin, may impel them
to death; or, if he shall have not succeeded by stratagem, he attempts
to cast them down by force and violence. For on this
account he was not at once thrust down by God to punishment at
the original transgression, that by his malice he may exercise
man to virtue: for unless this is in constant agitation, unless it is
strengthened by continual harassing, it cannot be perfect, inasmuch as
virtue is dauntless and unconquered patience in enduring evils. From
which it comes to pass that there is no virtue if an adversary is
wanting. When, therefore, they perceived the force of this perverse
power opposed to virtue, and were ignorant of its name, they invented
for themselves the senseless name of fortune; and how far this is
removed from wisdom, Juvenal declares in these verses:(5)--
"No divine power is absent if there is prudence; but we make you a
goddess, O Fortune, and place you in heaven."
It was folly, therefore, and error, and blindness, and, as Cicero
says,(6) ignorance of facts and causes, which introduced the names of
Nature and Fortune. But as they are ignorant of their adversary, so
also they do not indeed know virtue the knowledge of which is derived
from the idea of an adversary. And if this is joined with wisdom, or,
as they say, is itself also wisdom, they must be ignorant in what
subjects it is contained. For no one can possibly be furnished with
true arms if he is ignorant of the enemy against whom he must be armed;
nor can he overcome his adversary, who in fighting does not attack his
real enemy, but a shadow. For he will be overthrown, who, having his at-
100
tention fixed on another object, shall not previously have foreseen or
guarded against the blow aimed at his vitals.
CHAP. XXX.--THE CONCLUSION OF THE THINGS BEFORE SPOKEN; AND BY WHAT
MEANS WE MUST PASS FROM THE VANITY OF THE PHILOSOPHERS TO TRUE WISDOM,
AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE GOD, IN WHICH ALONE ARE VIRTUE AND
HAPPINESS.
I have taught, as far as my humble talents
permitted, that the philosophers held a course widely deviating from
the truth. I perceive, however, how many things I have omitted, because
it was not my province to enter into a disputation against
philosophers. But it was necessary for me to make a digression to this
subject, that I might show that so many and great intellects have
expended themselves in vain on false subjects, lest any one by chance
being shut out by corrupt superstitions, should wish to betake himself
to them as though about to find some certainty. Therefore the only
hope, the only safety for man, is placed in this doctrine, which we
defend. All the wisdom of man consists in this alone, the knowledge and
worship of God: this is our tenet, this our opinion. Therefore with all
the power of my voice I testify, I proclaim. I declare: Here, here is
that which all philosophers have sought throughout their whole life;
and yet, they have not been able to investigate, to grasp, and to
attain to it, because they either retained a religion which was
corrupt, or took it away altogether. Let them therefore all depart, who
do not instruct human life, but throw it into confusion. For what
do they teach? or whom do they instruct, who have not yet instructed
themselves? whom are the sick able to heal, whom can the blind guide?
Let us all, therefore, who have any regard for wisdom, betake ourselves
to this subject. Or shall we wait until Socrates knows something? or
Anaxagoras finds light in the darkness? or until Democritus draws forth
truth from the well? or Empedocles extends the paths of his soul? or
until Arcesilas and Carneades see, and feel, and perceive?
Lo, a voice from heaven teaching the truth, and
displaying to us a light brighter than the sun itself.(1) Why are we
unjust to ourselves, and delay to take up wisdom, which learned men,
though they wasted their lives in its pursuit, were never able to
discover. Let him who wishes to be wise and happy hear the voice of
God, learn righteousness, understand the mystery of his birth, despise
human affairs, embrace divine things, that he may gain that chief good
to which he was born. Having overthrown all false religions, and having
refuted all the arguments, as many as it was customary or possible to
bring forward in their defence; then, having proved the systems of
philosophy to be false, we must now come to true religion and wisdom,
since, as I shall teach, they are both connected together; that we may
maintain it either by arguments, or by examples, or by competent
witnesses, and may show that the folly with which those worshippers of
gods do not cease to upbraid us, has no existence with us, but lies
altogether with them. And although, in the former books, when I was
contending against false religions, and in this, when I was
overthrowing false wisdom, I showed where the truth is, yet the next
book will more plainly indicate what is true religion and what true
wisdom.
101
THE DIVINE INSTITUTES
BOOK IV.
OF TRUE WISDOM AND RELIGION.
CHAP. I.--OF THE FORMER RELIGION OF MEN, AND HOW ERROR WAS SPREAD OVER
EVERY AGE, AND OF THE SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.
WHEN I reflect, O Emperor Constantine, and often
revolve in my mind the original condition of men, it is accustomed to
appear alike wonderful and unworthy that, by the folly of one age
embracing various superstitions, and believing in the existence of many
gods, they suddenly arrived at such ignorance of themselves, that the
truth being taken away from their eyes, the religion of the true God
was not observed, nor the condition of human nature, since men did not
seek the chief good in heaven, but on earth. And on this account
assuredly the happiness of the ancient ages was changed. For, having
left God, the parent and founder of all things, men began to worship
the senseless works(1) of their own hands. And what were the effects of
this corruption, or what evils it introduced, the subject itself
sufficiently declares. For, turning away from the chief good, which is
blessed and everlasting on this account, because it cannot be seen,(2)
or touched, or comprehended, and from the virtues which are in
agreement with that good, and which are equally immortal, gliding down
to these corrupt and frail gods, and devoting themselves to those
things by which the body only is adorned, and nourished, and delighted,
they sought eternal death for themselves, together with their gods and
goods relating to the body, because all bodies are subject to death.
Superstitions of this kind, therefore, were followed by injustice and
impiety, as must necessarily be the case. For men ceased to raise their
countenances to the heaven; but, their minds being depressed downwards,
clung to goods of the earth, as they did to earth-born
superstitions. There followed the disagreement of mankind, and
fraud, and all wickedness; because, despising eternal and incorruptible
goods, which alone ought to be desired by man, they rather chose
temporal and short-lived things, and greater trust was placed by men in
evil, inasmuch as they preferred vice to virtue, because it had
presented itself as nearer at hand.(3)
Thus human life, which in former ages had been
occupied with the clearest light, was overspread with gloom and
darkness; and in conformity with this depravity, when wisdom was taken
away, then at length men began to claim for themselves the name of
wise. For at the time when all were wise, no one was called by that
name. And would that this name, once common to all the class, though
reduced to a few, still retained its power! For those few might perhaps
be able, either by talent, or by authority, or by continual
exhortations, to free the people from vices and errors. But so entirely
had wisdom died out, that it is evident, from the very arrogance of the
name, that no one of those who were so called was really wise. And yet,
before the discovery of this philosophy, as it is termed, there are
said to have been seven,(4) who, because they ventured to inquire into
and discuss natural subjects, deserved to be esteemed and called wise
men.
O wretched and calamitous age, in which through the
whole world there were only seven who were called by the name of men,
for no one can justly be called a man unless he is wise! But if all the
others besides themselves were foolish, even they themselves were not
wise, because no one can be truly wise in the judgment of the foolish.
So far were they removed from wisdom, that not even afterwards, when
learning increased, and many and great intellects were always intent
upon this very subject, could the
102
truth be perceived and ascertained. For, after the renown of those
seven wise men, it is incredible with how great a desire of inquiring
into the truth all Greece was inflamed. And first of all, they
thought(1) the very name of wisdom arrogant, and did not call
themselves wise men, but desirous of wisdom. By which deed they both
condemned those who had rashly arrogated to themselves the name of wise
men, of error and folly, and themselves also of ignorance, which indeed
they did not deny. For wherever the nature of the subject had, as it
were, laid its hands upon their minds, so that they were unable to give
any account, they were accustomed to testify that, they knew nothing,
and discerned nothing.
Wherefore they are found to be much wiser, who in some degree saw
themselves, than those who had believed that they were wise.
CHAP. II.--WHERE WISDOM IS TO BE FOUND; WHY PYTHAGORAS AND PLATO DID
NOT APPROACH THE JEWS.
Wherefore, if they were not wise who were so called,
nor those of later times, who did not hesitate to confess their want of
wisdom, what remains but that wisdom is to be sought elsewhere, since
it has not been found where it was sought. But what can we suppose to
have been the reason why it was not found, though sought with the
greatest earnestness and labour by so many intellects, and during so
many ages, unless it be that philosophers sought for it out of their
own limits? And since they traversed and explored all parts, but
nowhere found any wisdom, and it must of necessity be somewhere, it is
evident that it ought especially to be sought there where the title of
folly(2) appears; under the covering of which God hides the treasury of
wisdom and truth, lest the secret of His divine work should be exposed
to view.(3) Whence I am accustomed to wonder that, when Pythagoras, and
after him Plato, inflamed with the love of searching out the truth, had
penetrated as far as to the Egyptians, and Magi, and Persians, that
they might become acquainted with their religious rites and
institutions (for they suspected that wisdom was concerned with
religion), they did not approach the Jews only, in whose possession
alone it then was, and to whom they might have gone more easily. But I
think that they were turned away from them by divine providence, that
they might not know the truth, because it was not yet permitted for the
religion of the true God and righteousness to become known to men of
other nations.(4) For God had determined, as the last time drew
near,(5) to send from heaven a great leader,(6) who should reveal to
foreign nations that which was taken away from a perfidious(7) and
ungrateful people. And I will endeavour to discuss the subject in this
book, if I shall first have shown that wisdom is so closely united with
religion, that the one cannot be separated from the other.
CHAP. III.--WISDOM AND RELIGION CANNOT BE SEPARATED: THE LORD OF NATURE
MUST NECESSARILY BE THE FATHER OF EVERY ONE.
The worship of the gods, as I have taught in the
former book, does not imply wisdom; not only because it gives up man,
who is a divine animal, to earthly and frail things, but because
nothing is fixed in it which may avail for the cultivation of the
character and the framing of the life; nor does it contain any
investigation of the truth, but only the rite of worship, which does
not consist in the service of the mind, but in the employment of the
body. And therefore that is not to be deemed true religion, because it
instructs and improves men by no precepts of righteousness and virtue.
Thus philosophy, inasmuch as it does not possess true religion, that
is, the highest piety, is not true wisdom. For if the divinity which
governs this world supports mankind with incredible beneficence, and
cherishes it as with paternal indulgence, wishes truly that gratitude
should be paid, and honour given to itself, man cannot preserve his
piety if he shall prove ungrateful for the heavenly benefits; and this
is certainly not the part of a wise man. Since, therefore, as I have
said, philosophy and the religious system of the gods are separated,
and far removed from each other; seeing that some are professors of
wisdom, through whom it is manifest that there is no approach to the
gods, and that others are priests of religion, through whom wisdom is
not learned; it is manifest that the one is not true wisdom, and that
the other is not true religion. Therefore I philosophy was not able to
conceive the truth, nor was the religious system of the gods able
to give an account of itself, since it is without it.
But where wisdom is joined by an inseparable connection with
religion, both must necessarily be true; because in our worship we
ought to be wise, that is, to know the proper object and mode of
worship, and in our wisdom to worship, that is, to complete our
knowledge by deed and action.
Where, then, is wisdom joined with religion? There,
indeed, where the one God is worshipped, where life and every action is
referred to one
103
source, and to one supreme authority: in short, the teachers of wisdom
are the same, who are also the priests of God.(1) Nor, however, let it
affect any one, because it often has happened, and may happen, that
some philosopher may undertake a priesthood of the gods; and when this
happens, philosophy is not, however, joined with religion; but
philosophy will both be unemployed amidst sacred rites, and religion
will be unemployed when philosophy shall be treated of. For that system
of religious rites is dumb, not only because it relates to gods who are
dumb, but also because its observance is by the hand and the fingers,
not by the heart and tongue, as is the case with ours, which is true.
Therefore religion is contained in wisdom, and wisdom in religion. The
one, then, cannot be separated from the other; because wisdom is
nothing else but the worship of the true God with just and pious
adoration. But that the worship of many gods is not in accordance with
nature, may be inferred and conceived even by this argument: that every
god who is worshipped by man must, amidst the solemn rites and prayers,
be invoked as father, not only for the sake of honour, but also of
reason; because he is both more ancient than man, and because he
affords life, safety, and sustenance, as a father does. Therefore
Jupiter is called father by those who pray to him, as is
Saturnus, and Janus, and Liber, and the rest in order; which
Lucilius(2) laughs at in the council of the gods: "So that there
is none of us who is not called excellent father of the gods; so that
father Neptunus, Liber, father Saturnus, Mars, Janus, father
Quirinus, are called after one name." But if nature does not permit
that one man should have many fathers (for he is produced from one
only), therefore the worship of many gods is contrary to nature, and
contrary to piety.
One only, therefore, is to be worshipped, who can
truly be called Father. He also must of necessity be Lord, because as
He has power to indulge, so also has He power to restrain. He is to be
called Father on this account, because He bestows upon us many and
great things; and Lord on this account, because He has the greatest
power of chastising and punishing. But that He who is Father is also
Lord, is shown even by reference to civil law.(3) For who will be able
to bring up sons, unless he has the power of a lord over them? Nor
without reason is he called father of a household,(4) although he only
has sons: for it is plain that the name of father embraces also
slaves(5), because "household" follows; and the name of "household"
comprises also sons, because the name of "father" precedes: from which
it is evident, that the same person is both father of his slaves s and
lord of his sons. Lastly, the son is set at liberty as if he were a
slave; and the liberated slave receives the name(6) of his patron, as
if he were a son. But if a man is named father of a household, that it
may appear that he is possessed of a double power, because as a father
he ought to indulge, and as a lord to restrain, it follows that he who
is a son is also a slave, and that he who is a father is also a lord.
As, therefore, by the necessity of nature, there cannot be more than
one father, so there can only be one lord. For what will the slave do
if many lords(7) shall give commands at variance with each other?
Therefore the worship of many gods is contrary to reason and to nature,
since there cannot be many fathers or lords; but it is necessary to
consider the gods both as fathers and lords.
Therefore the truth cannot be held where the same
man is subject to many fathers and lords, where the mind, drawn in
different directions to many objects, wanders to and fro, hither and
thither. Nor can religion have any firmness, when it is without a fixed
and settled dwelling-place. Therefore there can be no true worship of
many gods; just as that cannot be called matrimony, in which one woman
has many husbands, but she will either be called a harlot or an
adulteress. For when a woman is destitute of modesty, chastity, and
fidelity, she must of necessity be without virtue. Thus also the
religious system of the gods is unchaste and unholy, because it is
destitute of faith, for that unsettled and uncertain honour has no
source or origin.
CHAP. IV.--OF WISDOM LIKEWISE, AND RELIGION, AND OF THE RIGHT OF FATHER
AND LORD.
By these things it is evident how closely connected
are wisdom and religion. Wisdom relates to sons, and this relation
requires love; religion to servants, and this relation requires fear.
For as the former are bound to love and honour their father, so are the
latter bound to respect and venerate their lord. But with respect to
God, who is one only, inasmuch as He sustains the twofold character
both of Father and Lord, we are bound both to love Him, inasmuch as we
are sons, and to fear Him, inasmuch
104
as we are servants.(1) Religion, therefore, cannot be divided from
wisdom, nor can wisdom be separated from religion; because it is the
same God, who ought to be understood, which is the part of wisdom, and
to be honoured, which is the part of religion. But wisdom precedes,
religion follows; for the knowledge of God comes first, His worship is
the result of knowledge. Thus in the two names there is but one
meaning, though it seems to be different in each case. For the one is
concerned with the understanding, the other with action. But, however,
they resemble two streams flowing from one fountain. But the fountain
of wisdom and religion is God; and if these two streams shall turn
aside from Him, they must be dried up: for they who are ignorant of Him
cannot be wise or religious.
Thus it comes to pass that philosophers, and those
who worship many gods, either resemble disinherited sons or runaway
slaves, because the one do not seek their father, nor the other their
master. And as they who are disinherited do not attain to the
inheritance of their father, nor runaway slaves impunity, so neither
will philosophers receive immortality, which is the inheritance of the
heavenly kingdom, that is, the chief good, which they especially seek;
nor will the worshippers of gods escape the penalty of everlasting
death, which is the punishment of the true Master against those who are
deserters(2) of His majesty and name. But that God is Father and also
Lord was unknown to both, to the worshippers of the gods as well as to
the professors of wisdom themselves: inasmuch as they either thought
that nothing at all was to be worshipped; or they approved of false
religions or, although they understood the strength and power of the
Supreme God (as Plato, who says that there is one God, Creator of the
world, and Marcus Tullius, who acknowledges that man has been produced
by the Supreme God in an excellent condition), nevertheless they did
not render the worship due to Him as to the supreme Father, which was
their befitting and necessary duty. But that the gods cannot be fathers
or lords, is declared not only by their multitude, as I have shown
above,(3) but also by reason: because it is not reported that man was
made by gods, nor is it found that the gods themselves preceded the
origin of man, since it appears that there were men on the earth before
the birth of Vulcan, and Liber, and Apollo, and Jupiter himself. But
the creation of man is not accustomed to be assigned to Saturnus, nor
to his father Coelus.
But if none of those who are worshipped is said to
have originally formed and created man, it follows that none of these
can be called the father of man, and so none of them can be God.
Therefore it is not lawful to worship those by whom man was not
produced, for he could not be produced by many. Therefore the one and
only God ought to be worshipped, who was before Jupiter, and Saturnus,
and Coelus himself, and the earth. For He must have fashioned man, who,
before the creation of man, finished the heaven and the earth. He alone
is to be called Father who created us; He alone is to be considered
Lord who rules, who has the true and perpetual power of life and death.
And he who does not adore Him is a foolish servant, who flees from or
does not know his Master; and an undutiful son, who either hates or is
ignorant of his true Father.
CHAP. V.--THE ORACLES OF THE PROPHETS MUST BE LOOKED INTO; AND OF THEIR
TIMES, AND THE TIMES OF THE JUDGES AND KINGS.
Now, since I have shown that wisdom and religion
cannot be separated, it remains that we speak of religion itself, and
wisdom. I am aware, indeed, how difficult it is to discuss heavenly
subjects; but still the attempt must be ventured, that the truth may be
made clear and brought to light, and that many may be freed from error
and death, who despise and refuse the truth, while it is concealed
under a covering of folly. But before I begin to speak of God and His
works, I must first speak a few things concerning the prophets, whose
testimony I must now use, which I have refrained from doing in the
former books. Above all things, he who desires to comprehend the truth
ought not only to apply his mind to understand the utterances of the
prophets, but also most diligently to inquire into the times during
which each one of them existed, that he may know what future events
they predicted, and after how many years their predictions were
fulfilled.(4) Nor is there any difficulty in making these computations;
for they testified under what king each of them received the
inspiration of the Divine Spirit. And many have written and published
books respecting the times, making their commencement from the
prophet Moses, who lived about seven hundred years before the Trojan
war. But he, when he had governed the people for forty years, was
succeeded by Joshua, who held the chief place twenty-seven years.
After this they were under the government of judges
during three hundred anti seventy years.
105
Then their condition was changed, and they began to have kings; and
when they had ruled during four hundred and fifty years, until the
reign of Zedekiah, the Jews having been besieged by the king of
Babylon, and carried into captivity,(1) endured a long servitude,
until, in the seventieth year afterwards, the captive Jews were
restored to their own lands and settlements by Cyrus the elder, who
attained the supreme power over the Persians, at the time when
Tarquinius Superbus reigned at Rome. Wherefore, since the whole series
of times may be collected both from the Jewish histories and from those
of the Greeks and Romans, the times of the prophets individually may
also be collected; the last of whom was Zechariah, and it is agreed on
that he prophesied in the time of King Darius, in the second year of
his reign, and in the eighth month. Of so much greater antiquity(2) are
the prophets found to be than the Greek writers. And I bring forward
all these things, that they may perceive their error who endeavour to
refute Holy Scripture, as though it were new and recently composed,
being ignorant from what fountain the origin of our holy religion
flowed. But if any one, having put together arid examined the times,
shall duly lay the foundation of learning, and fully ascertain the
truth, he will also lay aside his error when he has gained the
knowledge of the truth.
CHAP. VI.--ALMIGHTY GOD BEGAT HIS SON; AND THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
SIBYLS AND OF TRISMEGISTUS CONCERNING HIM.
God, therefore, the contriver and founder of
all things, as we have said in the second hook, before He
commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and
incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had
afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call
angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He
considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being pewerful
in His Father's excellence and majesty. But that there is a Son
of the Most High God, who is possessed of the greatest power, is
shown not only by the unanimous utterances of the prophets, but also by
the declaration of Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls.
Hermes, in the book which is entitled The Perfect Word, made use of
these words: "The Lord and Creator of all things, whom we have thought
right to call God, since He made the second God visible and sensible.
But I use the term sensible, not because He Himself perceives (for the
question is not
whether He Himself perceives), but because He leads(3) to perception
and to intelligence. Since, therefore, He made Him first, and alone,
and one only, He appeared to Him beautiful, and most full of all good
things; and He hallowed Him, and altogether loved Him as His own Son."
The Erythraean Sibyl, in the beginning of her poem, which she commenced
with the Supreme God, proclaims the Son of God as the leader and
commander of all, in these verses:--
"The nourisher and creator of all things, who placed the sweet breath
in all, and made God the leader of all."
And again, at the end of the same poem:--
"But whom God gave for faithful men to honour."
And another Sibyl enjoins that He ought to be known:--
"Know Him as your God, who is the Son of God."
Assuredly He is the very Son of God, who by that most wise King
Solomon, full of divine inspiration, spake these things which we have
added:(4) "God founded(5) me in the beginning of His ways, in His work
before the ages. He set me up in the beginning, before He made the
earth, and before He established the depths, before the fountains of
waters came forth: the Lord begat me before all the hills; He made the
regions, and the uninhabitable(6) boundaries under the heaven. When He
prepared the heaven, I was by Him: and when He separated His own seat,
when He made the strong clouds above the winds, and when He
strengthened the mountains, and placed them under heaven; when He laid
the strong foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging all
things. I was He in whom He delighted: I was daily delighted, when He
rejoiced, the world being completed." But on this account Trismegistus
spoke of Him as "the artificer of God," and the Sibyl calls Him
"Counsellor," because He is endowed by God the Father with such wisdom
and strength, that God employed both His wisdom and hands in the
creation of the world.
CHAP. VII.--OF THE NAME OF SON, AND WHENCE HE IS CALLED JESUS AND
CHRIST.
Some one may perhaps ask who this is who is so
powerful, so beloved by God, and what name He has, who was not only
begotten at first before the world,(7) but who also arranged it by His
106
wisdom and constructed it by His might. First of all, it is befitting
that we should know that His name is not known even to the angels who
dwell in heaven, but to Himself only, and to God the Father; nor will
that name be published, as the sacred writings relate, before that the
purpose of God shall be fulfilled. In the next place, we must know that
this name cannot be uttered by the mouth of man, as Hermes teaches,
saying these things: "Now the cause of this cause is the will of the
divine good which produced God, whose name cannot be uttered by the
mouth of man." And shortly afterwards to His Son: "There is, O Son, a
secret word of wisdom, holy respecting the only Lord of all things, and
the God first perceived(1) by the mind, to speak of whom is beyond the
power of man." But although His name, which the supreme Father gave Him
from the beginning, is known to none but Himself, nevertheless He has
one name among the angels, and another among men since He is called
Jesus(2) among men: for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of
power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their
kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of
the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed
to call Him Chrestus.(3) The Jews had before been directed to compose a
sacred oil, with which those who were called to the priesthood(4) or to
the kingdom might be anointed. And as now the robe of purple(5) is a
sign of the assumption of royal dignity among the Romans, so with them
the anointing with the holy oil conferred the title and power of king.
But since the ancient Greeks used the word
<greek>kriesqai</greek> to express the art of anointing,
which they now express by <greek>aleifesqai</greek>, as the
verse of Homer shows,
"But the attendants washed, and anointed(6) them with oil;"
on this account we call Him Christ, that is, the Anointed, who in
Hebrew is called the Messias. Hence in some Greek writings, which are
badly translated(7) from the Hebrew, the word eleimmenos(8) is found
written, from the word aleiphesthai,(9) anointing. But, however, by
either name a king is signified: not that He has obtained this earthly
kingdom, the time for receiving which
has not yet arrived, but that He sways a heavenly and eternal kingdom,
concerning which we shall speak in the last book. But now let us speak
of His first nativity.
CHAP. VIII.--OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS IN THE SPIRIT AND IN THE FLESH: OF
SPIRITS AND THE TESTIMONIES OF PROPHETS.
For we especially testify that He was twice born,
first in the spirit, and afterwards in the flesh. Whence it is thus
spoken by Jeremiah:(10) "Before I formed Thee in the womb I knew Thee."
And likewise by the same: "Who was blessed before He was born;"(11)
which was the case with no one else but Christ. For though He was the
Son of God from the beginning,(12) He was born again(13) a second
time(14) according to the flesh: and this twofold birth of His has
introduced great terror into the minds of men, and overspread with
darkness even those who retained the mysteries of true religion. But we
will show this plainly and clearly, that they who love wisdom may be
more easily and diligently instructed. He who hears the Son of God
mentioned ought not to conceive in his mind so great impiety as to
think that God begat Him by marriage and union with a woman, which none
does but an animal possessed of a body, and subject to death. But with
whom could God unite Himself, since He is alone? or since His power was
so great, that He accomplished whatever He wished, assuredly He did not
require the co-operation .s of another for procreation. Unless by
chance we shall [profanely] imagine, as Orpheus supposed, that God is
both male and female, because otherwise He would have been unable to
beget, unless He had the power of each sex, as though He could have
intercourse with Himself, or without such intercourse be unable to
produce.
But Hermes also was of the same opinion, when he
says that He was "His own father," and "His own mother."(16) But if
this were so, as He is called by the prophets father, so also He would
be called mother. In what manner, then, did He beget Him? First of all,
divine operations cannot be known or declared(17) by any one; but
nevertheless the sacred writings teach us, in which it is laid down(18)
that this Son of God is the speech, or even the reason(19) of God, and
also
107
that the other angels are spirits(1) of God. For speech is breath sent
forth with a voice signifying something. But, however, since breath and
speech are sent forth from different parts, inasmuch as breath proceeds
from the nostrils, speech from the mouth, the difference between the
Son of God and the other angels is great. For they proceeded from God
as silent spirits, because they were not created to teach(2) the
knowledge of God, but for His service. But though He is Himself also a
spirit, yet He proceeded from the mouth of God with voice and sound, as
the Word, on this account indeed, because He was about to make use of
His voice to the people; that is, because He was about to be a teacher
of the knowledge of God, and of the heavenly mystery(3) to be revealed
to man: which word also God Himself first spoke, that through Him He
might speak to us, and that He might reveal to us the voice and will of
God.
With good reason, therefore, is He called the Speech
and the Word of God, because God, by a certain incomprehensible energy
and power of His majesty, enclosed the vocal spirit proceeding from His
mouth, which he had not conceived in the womb, but in His mind, within
a form which has life through its own perception and wisdom, and He
also fashioned other spirits of His into angels. Our spirits(4) are
liable to dissolution, because we are mortal: but the spirits of God
both live, and are lasting, and have perception; because He Himself is
immortal, and the Giver both of perception(5) and life. Our
expressions, although they are mingled with the air, and fade away, yet
generally remain comprised in letters; how much more must we believe
that the voice of God both remains for ever, and is accompanied with
perception and power, which it has derived from God the Father,
as a stream from its fountain! But if any one wonders that God could be
produced from God by a putting forth of the voice and breath, if
he is acquainted with the sacred utterances of the prophets he
will cease to wonder. That Solomon and his father David were most
powerful kings, and also prophets, may perhaps be known even to those
who have not applied themselves to the sacred writings; the one of
whom, who reigned subsequently to the other, preceded the
destruction of the city of Troy by one hundred and forty years. His
father, the writer of sacred hymns, thus speaks in the thirty-second
Psalm:(6) "By the word of God we, re the heavens made firm; and all
their power(7) by the breath of His mouth." And also again in the
forty-fourth Psalm:(8) "My heart hath given utterance to a good word; I
speak of my doings towards the king;" testifying, in truth, that the
works of God are known to no other than to the Son alone, who is the
Word of God, and who must reign for ever. Solomon also shows that it is
the Word of God, and no other,(9) by whose hands these works of the
world were made. "I," He says, "came forth out of the mouth of the Most
High before all creatures: I caused the light that faileth not to arise
in the heavens, and covered the whole earth with a cloud. I have dwelt
in the height, and my throne is in the pillar of the cloud."(10) John
also thus taught: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All
things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made."(11)
CHAP. IX.--OF THE WORD OF GOD.
But the Greeks speak of Him as the Logos,(12) more
befittingly than we do as the word, or speech: for Logos signifies both
speech and reason, inasmuch as He is both the voice and the wisdom of
God. And of this divine speech not even the philosophers were ignorant,
since Zeno represents the Logos as the arranger of the established
order of things, and the framer of the universe: whom also He calls
Fate, and the necessity of things, and God, and the soul of Jupiter, in
accordance with the custom, indeed, by which they are wont to regard
Jupiter as God. But the words are no obstacle, since the sentiment is
in agreement with the truth. For it is the spirit of God which he named
the soul of Jupiter. For Trismegistus, who by some means or other
searched into almost all truth, often described the excellence and
majesty of the word, as the instance before mentioned declares, in
which he acknowledges that there is an ineffable and sacred speech, the
relation of which exceeds the measure of man's ability. I have spoken
briefly, as I have been able, concerning the first nativity. Now I must
more fully discuss the second, since this is the subject most
controverted, that we may hold forth the light of understanding to
those who desire to know the truth.
108
CHAP. X.--OF THE ADVENT OF JESUS; OF THE FORTUNES OF THE JEWS, AND
THEIR GOVERNMENT, UNTIL THE PASSION OF THE LORD.
In the first place, then, men ought to know that the
arrangements of the Most High God have so advanced from the beginning,
that it was necessary, as the end of the world(1) approached, that the
Son of God should descend to the earth, that He might build a temple
for God, and teach righteousness; but, however, not with the might of
an angel or with heavenly power, but in the form of man and in the
condition of a mortal, that when He had discharged the office of His
ministry,(2) He might be delivered into the hands of wicked men, and
might undergo death, that, having subdued this also by His might, He
might rise again, and bring to man, whose nature He had put on(3) and
represented, the hope of overcoming death, and might admit him to the
rewards of immortality. And that no one may be ignorant of this
arrangement, we will show that all things were foretold which we see
fulfilled in Christ. Let no one believe our assertion unless I shall
show that the prophets before a long series of ages published that it
should come to pass at length that the Son of God should be born as a
man, and perform wonderful deeds, and sow(4) the worship of God
throughout the whole earth, and at last be crucified, and on the third
day rise again. And when I shall have proved all these things by the
writings of those very men who treated with violence their God who had
assumed a mortal body, what else will prevent it from being
manifest that true wisdom is conversant with this religion only? Now
the origin of the whole mystery is to be related.
Our ancestors,(5) who were chiefs of the Hebrews,
when they were distressed by famine and want, passed over into Egypt,
that they might obtain a supply of corn; and sojourning there a long
time, they were oppressed with an intolerable yoke of slavery. Then God
pitied them, and led them out, and freed them from the hand of the king
of the Egyptians, after four hundred and thirty(6) years, under the
leadership of Moses, through whom the law was afterwards given to
them by God; and in this leading out God displayed the power of His
majesty. For He made His people to pass through the midst of the
Red
Sea, His angel(7) going before and dividing the water, so that the
people might walk over the dry land, of whom it might more truly be
said (as the poet says(8)), that "the wave, closing over him after the
appearance of a mountain, stood around him." And when he heard of this,
the tyrant of the Egyptians followed with this great host of his men,
and rashly entering the sea which still lay open, was destroyed,
together with his whole army, by the waves returning(9) to their place.
But the Hebrews, when they had entered into the wilderness, saw many
wonderful deeds. For when they suffered thirst, a rock having been
struck with a rod, a fountain of water sprung forth and refreshed the
people. And again, when they were hungry, a shower(10) of heavenly
nourishment descended. Moreover, also, the wind(11) brought quails into
their camp, so that they were not only satisfied with heavenly bread,
but also with more choice banquets. And yet, in return for these divine
benefits, they did not pay honour to God; but when slavery had been now
removed from them, and their thirst and hunger laid aside, they fell
away into luxury, and transferred their minds to the profane rites of
the Egyptians. For when Moses, their leader, had ascended into
the mountain, and there tarried forty days, they made the head(12) of
an ox in gold, which they call Apis,(13) that it might go before them
as a standard.(14) With which sin and crime God was offended, and
justly visited the impious and ungrateful people with severe
punishments, and made them subject to the law(15) which He had given by
Moses.
But afterwards, when they had settled in a desert
part of Syria, the Hebrews(16) lost their ancient name; and since the
leader of their host(17) was Judas, they were called Jews,(18) and the
land which they inhabited Judaea. And at
109
first, indeed, they were not subject to the dominion of Kings, but
civil Judges presided over the people and the law: they were not,
however, appointed only for a year, as the Roman consuls, but supported
by a perpetual jurisdiction. Then, the name of Judges being taken away,
the kingly power was introduced. But during the government of the
Judges the people had often undertaken corrupt religious rites; and
God, offended by them, as often brought them into bondage to n
strangers, until again, softened by the repentance of the people,
He freed them from bondage. Likewise under the Kings, being
oppressed by wars with their neighbours on account of their
iniquities, and at last taken captive and led to Babylon, they
suffered punishment for their impiety by oppressive slavery, until
Cyrus came to the kingdom, who immediately restored the Jews by an
edict. Afterwards they had tetrarchs until the time of Herod, who was
in the reign of Tiberius Caesar; in whose fifteenth year, in the
consulship of the two Gemini, on the 23d of March,(1) the Jews
crucified Christ. This series of events, this order, is contained in
the secrets of the sacred writings. But I will first show for what
reason Christ came to the earth, that the foundation and the system of
divine religion may be manifest.
CHAP. XI.--OF THE
CAUSE OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST.
When the Jews often resisted wholesome precepts, and
departed from the divine law, going astray to the impious worship of
false gods, then God filled just and chosen men with the Holy Spirit,
appointing them as prophets in the midst of the people, by whom He
might rebuke with threatening words the sins of the ungrateful people,
and nevertheless exhort them to repent of their wickedness; for unless
they did this, and, laying aside their vanities, return to their God,
it would come to pass that He would change His covenant,(2) that is,
bestow(3) the inheritance of eternal life upon foreign nations, and
collect to Himself a more faithful people out of those who were
aliens(4) by birth. But they, when rebuked by the prophets, not only
rejected their words; but being offended because they were upbraided
for their sins, they slew the prophets themselves with studied(5)
tortures: all which things are sealed up and preserved in the sacred
writings. For the prophet Jeremiah says:(6) "I
sent to you my servants the prophets; I sent them before the morning
light; but ye did not hearken, nor incline your ears to hear, when I
spake unto you: let every one of you turn from his evil way, and from
your most corrupt affections; and ye shall dwell in the land which I
gave to you and to your fathers for ever.(7) Walk ye not after strange
gods, to serve them; and provoke me not to anger with the works of your
hands, that I should destroy you." The prophet Ezra(8) also, who was in
the times of the same Cyrus by whom the Jews were restored, thus
speaks: They rebelled against Thee, and cast Thy law behind their
backs, and slew Thy prophets which testified against them, that they
might turn unto Thee."
The prophet Elias also, in the third book of
Kings:(9) "I have been very jealous(10) for the Lord God of hosts,
because the children of Israel have forsaken Thee, thrown down Thine
altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I only am left, and
they seek my life to take it away." On account of these impieties of
theirs He cast them off for ever;(11) and so He ceased to send to them
prophets. But He commanded His own Son, the first-begotten,(12) the
maker of all things, His own counsellor, to descend from heaven, that
He might transfer the sacred religion of God to the Gentiles,(13) that
is, to those who were ignorant of God, and might teach them
righteousness, which the perfidious people had cast aside· And
He had long before threatened that He would do this, as the prophet
Malachi(14) shows, saying: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord,
and I will not accept an offering from your hands; for from the rising
of the sun even unto its setting, my name shall be great(15) among the
Gentiles." David also in the seventeenth Psalm(16) says: "Thou wilt
make me the head of the heathen; a people whom I have not known shall
serve me" Isaiah(17) also thus speaks: "I come to gather all nations
and tongues; and they shall come and see my glory; and I will send
among them a sign, and I will send those that escape of them unto the
nations which are afar off, which have not heard my fame; and they
shall declare my glory among
110
the Gentiles." Therefore, when God wished to send to the earth one who
should measure(1) His temple, He was unwilling to send him with
heavenly power and glory, that the people who had been ungrateful
towards God might be led into the greatest error, and suffer punishment
for their crimes, since they had not received their Lord and God, as
the prophets had before foretold that it would thus happen. For Isaiah
whom the Jews most cruelly slew, cutting him asunder with a saw,(2)
thus speaks:(3) "Hear, O heaven; and give ear, O earth: for the Lord
hath spoken, I have begotten sons, and lifted(4) them up on high, and
they have rejected me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his
master's stall; but Israel hath not known, my people has not
understood." Jeremiah also says, in like manner:(5) "The turtle and the
swallow hath known her time, and the sparrows of the field have
observed(6) the tithes of their coining: but my people have not known
the judgment of the Lord. How do you say, We are wise, and the law of
the Lord is with us? The meting out(7) is in vain; the scribes are
deceived and confounded: the wise men are dismayed and taken, for they
have rejected the word of the Lord."
Therefore (as I had begun to say), when God had
determined to send to men a teacher of righteousness, He commanded Him
to be born again a second time in the flesh, and to be made in the
likeness of man himself, to whom he was about to be a guide, and
companion, and teacher. But since God is kind and merciful(8) to His
people, He sent Him to those very persons whom He hated,(9) that He
might not close the way of salvation against them for ever, but might
give them a free opportunity of following God, that they might both
gain the reward of life if they should follow Him (which many of them
do, and have done), and that they might incur the penalty of death by
their fault if they should reject their King. He ordered Him therefore
to be born again among them, and of their seed, lest, if He should be
born of another nation, they might be able to allege a just excuse from
the law for their rejection of Him; and at the same time, that there
might be no nation at all under heaven to which the hope of immortality
should be denied.
CHAP. XII.--OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS FROM THE VIRGIN; OF HIS LIFE, DEATH,
AND RESURRECTION, AND THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROPHETS RESPECTING THESE
THINGS.
Therefore the Holy Spirit of God, descending from
heaven, chose the holy Virgin, that He might enter into her womb.(10)
But she, I being filled by the possession(11) of the Divine Spirit,
conceived; and without any intercourse with a man, her virgin womb was
suddenly impregned. But if it is known to all that certain animals are
accustomed to conceive(12) by the wind and the breeze, why should any
one think it wonderful when we say that a virgin was made fruitful by
the Spirit of God, to whom whatever He may wish is easy? And this might
have appeared incredible, had not the prophets many ages previously
foretold its occurrence. Thus Solomon speaks:(13) "The womb of a virgin
was strengthened, and conceived; and a virgin was made fruitful, and
became a mother in great pity." Likewise the prophet Isaiah,(14) whose
words are these: "Therefore God Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call His name
Emmanuel." What can be more manifest than this? This was read by the
Jews, who denied Him. If any one thinks that these things are invented
by us, let him inquire of them, let him take especially from them: the
testimony is sufficiently strong to prove the truth, when it is alleged
by enemies themselves, But He was never called Emmanuel, but Jesus, who
in Latin is called Saving, or Saviour,(15) because He comes bringing
salvation to all nations. But by this name the prophet declared that
God incarnate was about to come to men. For Emmanuel signifies God with
us; because when He was born of a virgin, men ought to confess
that God was with them, that is, on the earth and in mortal flesh.
Whence David(16) says in the eighty-fourth Psalm, "Truth has sprung out
of the earth;" because God, in whom is truth, hath taken a body of
earth, that He might open a way of salvation to those of the earth. In
like manner Isaiah also:(17) "But they disbelieved, and vexed His Holy
111
Spirit; and He was turned to be their enemy. And He Himself fought
against them, and He remembered the days of old,(1) who raised up from
the earth a shepherd of the sheep." But who this shepherd was about to
be, he declared in another place,(2) saying: "Let the heavens rejoice,
and let the clouds put on righteousness; let the earth open, and put
forth a Saviour. For I the Lord have begotten Him." But the Saviour is,
as we have said before, Jesus. But in another place the same prophet
also thus proclaimed:(3) "Behold, unto us a child is born, unto us a
Son is given, whose dominion is upon His shoulders, and His name is
called Messenger of great counsel." For on this account He was sent by
God the Father, that He might reveal to all the nations which are under
heaven the sacred mystery of the only true God, which was taken away
from the perfidious people, who ofttimes sinned against God. Daniel
also foretold similar things:(4) "I saw," he said, "in a vision of the
night, and, behold, one like the Son of man coming with the clouds of
heaven, and He came even to the Ancient of days. And they who stood by
brought Him near(5) s before Him. And there was given unto Him a
kingdom, and glory, and dominion; and all people, tribes, and languages
shall serve Him: and His dominion is everlasting, which shall never
pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed." How then do the
Jews both confess and expect the Christ of God? who rejected Him on
this account, because He was born of man. For since it is so arranged
by God that the same Christ should twice come to the earth, once to
announce to the nations the one God, then again to reign, why do they
who did not believe in His first advent believe in the second?
But the prophet comprises both His advents in few
words. Behold, he says, one like the Son of man coming with the clouds
of heaven. He did not say, like the Son of God, but the Son of man,
that he might show that He had(6) to be clothed with flesh on the
earth, that having assumed the form of a man and the condition of
mortality, He might teach men righteousness; and when, having completed
the commands of God, He had revealed the truth to the nations, He might
also suffer death, that He might overcome and lay open(7) the other
world also, and thus at length rising again, He might proceed to His
Father borne aloft on a cloud.(8) For the prophet said in addition: And
came even to the Ancient of days, and was presented to Him. He called
the Most High God the Ancient of days, whose age and origin cannot be
comprehended; for He alone was from generations, and He will be always
to generations.(9) But that Christ, after His passion and resurrection,
was about to ascend to God the Father, David bore witness in these
words in the cixth Psalm:(10) "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at
my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Whom could
this prophet, being himself a king, call his Lord, who sat at the right
hand of God, but Christ the Son of God, who is King of kings and Lord
of lords? And this is more plainly shown by Isaiah,(11) when he says:
"Thus saith the Lord God to my Lord Christ, whose right hand I have
holden; I will subdue nations before Him, and will break the
strength of kings. I will open before Him gates, and the cities shall
not be closed. I will go before Thee, and will make the mountains
level; and I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and shatter the
bars of iron; and I will give Thee the hidden and invisible
treasures, that Thou mayest know that I am the Lord God, which