9

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 call Thee by Thy name, the God of Israel."  Lastly, on
account of the goodness and faithfulness which He displayed towards God
on earth, there was given to Him a kingdom, and glory, and dominion; and
all people, tribes, and languages shall serve Him; and His dominion is
everlasting, and that which shall never pass away, and His kingdom shall
not be destroyed.  And this is understood in two ways: that even

 now He has an everlasting dominion, when all nations and all languages
adore His name, confess His majesty, follow His teaching, and imitate
His goodness: He has power and glory, in that all tribes of the earth
obey His precepts.  And also, when He shall come again with majesty and
glory to judge every soul, and to restore the righteous to life, then He
shall truly have the government of the whole earth: then, every evil
having been removed from the affairs of men, a golden age (as the poets
call it), that is, a time of righteousness and peace, will arise.  But
we will speak of these things more fully in the last book, when we shall
speak of His second advent; now let us treat of His first advent, as we
began.

CHAP. XIII.--OF JESUS, GOD AND MAN; AND THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROPHETS
CONCERNING HIM.

 Therefore the Most High God, and Parent of all, when He had purposed to
transfer(12) His

112

religion, sent from heaven a teacher of righteousness, that in Him or
through Him He might give a new law to new worshippers; not as He had
before done, by the instrumentality of man.  Nevertheless it was His
pleasure that He should be born as a man, that in all things He might be
like His supreme Father· For God the Father Himself, who is the origin
and source of all things, inasmuch as He is without parents, is most
truly named by Trismegistus "fatherless" and "motherless,"(1) because He
was born from no one.  For which reason it was befitting that the Son
also should be twice born, that He also might become "fatherless" and
"motherless."  For in His first nativity, which was spiritual, He was
"motherless," because He was begotten by God the Father alone, without
the office of a mother.  But in His second, which was in the flesh, He
was born of a virgin's womb without the office of a father, that,
bearing a middle substance between God and man, He might be able, as it
were, to take by the hand this frail and weak nature of ours, and raise
it to immortality.  He became both the Son of God through the Spirit,
and the Son of man through the flesh,--that is, both God and man.  The
power of God was displayed in Him, from the works which He performed;
the frailty of the man, from the passion which He endured: on what
account He undertook it I will mention a little later.  In the meantime,
we learn from the predictions of the prophets that He was both God and
man-- composed(2) of both natures.  Isaiah testifies that He was God in
these words:(3) "Egypt is wearied,(4) and the merchandise of Ethiopia,
and the Sabaeans, men of stature, shall come over unto Thee, and shall
be Thy servants: and they shall walk behind Thee; in chains they shall
fall down unto Thee, and shall make supplication unto Thee, Since God is
in Thee, and there is no other God besides Thee.  For Thou art God, and
we knew Thee not, the God of lsrael, the Savour.  They shall all be
confounded and ashamed who oppose Thee, and shall fall into confusion."
In like manner the prophet Jeremiah(5) thus speaks: "This is our God,
and there shall none other be compared unto Him.  He hath found out all
the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant, and to
Israel His beloved.  Afterward He was seen upon earth, and dwelt among
men."  David also, in the forty-fourth Psalm:(6) "Thy throne, O God, is
for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy
kingdom.  Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness l
therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness."
By which word he also shows His name, since (as I have shown above) He
was called Christ from His anointing.  Then, that He was also man,
Jeremiah teaches, saying:(7) "And He is a man, and who hath known Him?"
Also Isaiah:(8) "And God shall send to them a man, who shall save them,
shall save them by judging."  But Moses also, in Numbers,(9) thus
speaks: "There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man(10) shall
spring forth from Israel."  On which account the Milesian Apollo,(11)
being asked whether He was God or man, replied in this manner: "He was
mortal as to His body, being wise with wondrous works; but being taken
with arms under Chaldean judges, with nails and the cross He endured a
bitter end."  In the first verse he spoke the truth, but he skilfully
deceived him who asked the question, who was entirely ignorant of the
mystery of the truth.  For he appears to have

 denied that He was God.  But when he acknowledges that He was mortal as
to the flesh, which we also declare, it follows that as to the spirit He
was God, which we affirm.  For why would it have been necessary to make
mention of the flesh, since it was sufficient to say that He was mortal?
But being pressed by the truth, he could not deny the real state of the
case; as that which he says, that He was wise.

 What do you reply to this, Apollo?  If he is wise, then his system of
instruction is wisdom, and no other; and they are wise who follow it,
and no others.  Why then are we commonly esteemed as foolish, and
visionary, and senseless, who follow a Master who is wise even by the
confession of the gods themselves?  For in that he said that He wrought
wonderful deeds, by which He especially claimed faith is His divinity,
he now appears to assent to us, when he says the same things in which we
boast.  But, however, he recovers himself, and again has recourse to
demoniacal frauds.  For when he had been compelled to speak the truth,
he now appeared to be a betrayer of the gods and of himself, unless he
had, by a deceptive falsehood, concealed that which the truth had
extorted from him.  He says, therefore, that He did indeed perform won-

113

derful works, yet not by divine power, but by magic.  What wonder if
Apollo thus persuaded men ignorant of the truth, when the Jews also,
worshippers (as they seemed to be) of the Most High God, entertained the
same opinion, though they had every day before their eyes those mira-
cles which the prophets had foretold to them as about to happen, and yet
they could not be induced by the contemplation of such powers to believe
that He whom they saw was God?  On this account, David, whom they
especially read above the other prophets, in the twenty-seventh Psalm(1)
thus condemns them: "Render to them their desert, because they regard
not the works of the Lord."  Both David himself and other prophets
announced that of the house of this very David, Christ should be born
according to the flesh.  Thus it is written in Isaiah:(2) "And in that
day there shall be a root of Jesse, and He who shall arise to rule over
the nations, in Him shall the Gentiles trust; and His rest shall be
glorious."  And in another place:(3) "There shall come forth a rod out
of the stem of Jesse, and a blossom(4) shall grow out of his root; and
the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the spirit of counsel and of might, the spirit of
knowledge and of piety; and He shall be filled(5) with the spirit of
fear of the Lord."  Now Jesse was the father of David, from whose root
he foretold that a blossom would arise; namely him of whom the Sibyl
speaks, "A pure blossom shall spring forth."

 Also in the second book of Kings, the prophet Nathan was sent to David,
who wished to build a temple for God; and this was the word of the Lord
to Nathan, saying:(6) "Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord
Almighty, Thou shall not build me a house for me to dwell in; but when
thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will
raise up thy seed after thee, and I will establish His kingdom.  He
shall build me a house for my name, and I will set up His throne for
ever; and I will be to Him for a father, and He shall be to me for a
son; and His house shall be established,(7) and His kingdom for ever."
But the reason why the Jews did not understand these things was this,
because Solomon the son of David built a temple for God, and the city
which he called from his own name, Jerusalem.(8) Therefore they referred
the predictions of the prophets to him.  Now Solomon received the
government of the kingdom from his father himself.  But the prophets
spoke of Him who was then born after that David had slept with his
fathers.  Besides, the reign of Solomon was not everlasting; for he
reigned forty years.  In the next place, Solomon was never called the
son of God, but the son of David; and the house which he built was not
firmly established,(9) as the Church, which is the true temple of God,
which does not consist of walls, but of the heart(10) and faith of the
men who believe on Him, and are called faithful.  But that temple of
Solomon, inasmuch as it was built by the hand, fell by the hand.
Lastly, his father, in the cxxvith Psalm, prophesied in this manner
respecting the works of his son:(11) "Except the Lord build the house,
they have laboured in vain that built it; except the Lord keep the city,
the watchman hath waked but in vain."

CHAP. XIV.--OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF JESUS FORE-

TOLD BY THE PROPHETS.

 From which things it is evident that all the prophets declared
concerning Christ, that it should come to pass at some time, that being
born with a body(12) of the race of David, He should build an eternal
temple in honour of God, which is called the Church, and assemble all
nations to the true worship of God.  This is the faithful house, this is
the everlasting temple; and if any one hath not sacrificed in this, he
will not have the reward of immortality.  And since Christ was the
builder of this great and eternal temple, He must also have an
everlasting priesthood in it; and there can be no approach to the shrine
of the temple, and to the sight of God, except through Him who built the
temple.  David in the cixth Psalm teaches the same, saying:(13) "Before
the morning-star I begat Thee.  The Lord hath sworn, and will not
repent; Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec."
Also in the first book of Kings:(14) "And I will raise me up a faithful
Priest, who shall do all things that are in mine heart; and I will build
him a sure(15) house; and he shall walk in my sight(16) all his days."
But who this was about to be, to whom God promised an everlasting
priesthood, Zechariah most plainly teaches, even mentioning His
name:(17) "And the Lord God showed

114

me Jesus(1) the great Priest standing before the face of the angel of
the Lord, and the adversary(2) was standing at His right hand to resist
Him.  And the Lord said unto the adversary, The Lord who hath chosen
Jerusalem rebuke thee; and lo, a brand plucked out of the fire.  And
Jesus was clothed with filthy garments, and He was standing before the
face of the angel.  And He answered and spake unto those that stood
around before His face, saying, Take away the filthy garments from Him,
and clothe Him with a flowing(3) garment, and place a fair mitre(4) upon
His head; and they clothed Him with a garment, and placed a fair mitre
upon His head.  And the angel of the Lord stood, and protested, saying
to Jesus: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, If Thou wilt walk in my ways,
and keep my precepts, Thou shalt judge my house, and I will give Thee
those that may walk with Thee in the midst of these that stand by.
Hear, therefore, O Jesus, Thou great Priest."

 Who, therefore, would not believe that the Jews were then deprived of
understanding, who, when they read and heard these things, laid impious
hands upon their God?  But from the time in which Zechariah lived, until
the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, in which Christ was
crucified, nearly five hundred years are reckoned; since he flourished
in the time of Darius and Alexander,(5) who lived not long after the
banishment of Tarquinius Superbus.  But they were again misled and
deceived in the same manner, in supposing that these things were spoken
concerning Jesus(6) the son of Nave, who was the successor of Moses, or
concerning Jesus the high priest the son of Josedech; to whom none of
those things which the prophet related was suited.  For they were never
clothed in filthy garments, since one of them was a most powerful
prince, and the other high priest; or suffered any adversity, so that
they should be regarded as a brand plucked from the fire: not did they
ever stand in the presence of God and the angels; nor did the prophet
speak of the past so much as of the future.  He spoke, therefore, of
Jesus the Son of God, to show that He would first come in humility and
in the flesh.  For this is the filthy garme