(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all mistakes found.)


LACTANTIUS

THE DIVINE INSTITUTES, BOOKS I-II
[Translated by the Rev. William Fletcher, D.D.]

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 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 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 himself 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 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 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 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 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?

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 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 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 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?
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 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: 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 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 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."

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
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  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 distempered 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 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, because 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 e'ridos and chthono's, 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 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 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 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 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 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 insidious 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 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 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 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.


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 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
a'nthrwpos,(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. 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, 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
themselves 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 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 the
carpenter, 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 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 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, 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 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.

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, received
the 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, 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.

   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 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 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
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 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 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 substances 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 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 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 condition, 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 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, 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.

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 uninitiated 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 honour (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 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 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.


Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland beginning in
1867. (ANF 7, Roberts and Donaldson). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
  Provided courtesy of:

       EWTN On-Line Services
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.