(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 III-IV
[Translated by the Rev. William Fletcher, D.D.]

BOOK III.

OF THE FALSE WISDOM OF PHILOSOPHERS.

CHAP. I.--A COMPARISON OF THE TRUTH WITH ELOQUENCE: WHY THE PHILOSOPHERS
DID NOT ATTAIN TO IT. OF THE SIMPLE STYLE OF THE SCRIPTURES.

   SINCE. it is supposed that the truth still lies hidden in obscurity--
either through the error and ignorance of the common people, who are the
slaves of various and foolish superstitions, or through the philosophers,
who by the perverseness of their minds confuse rather than throw light upon
it--I could wish that the power of eloquence had fallen to my lot, though
not such as it was in Marcus Tullius, for that was extraordinary and
admirable, but in some degree approaching it;(1) that, being supported as
much by the strength of talent as it has weight by its own force, the truth
might at length come forth, and having dispelled and refuted public errors,
and the errors of those who are considered wise, might introduce among the
human race a brilliant light. And I could wish that this were so, for two
reasons: either that men might more readily believe the truth when adorned
with embellishments, since they even believe falsehood, being captivated by
the adornment of speech and the  enticement of words; or, at all events,
that the  philosophers themselves might be overpowered by us, most of all
by their own arms, in which  they are accustomed to pride themselves and to
place confidence.

   But since God has willed this to be the nature of the case, that simple
and undisguised truth should be more clear, because it has sufficient
ornament of itself, and on this account it is corrupted when embellished(2)
with adornings from  without, but that falsehood should please by means of
a splendour not its own, because being corrupt of itself it vanishes and
melts away, unless it is set off(3) and polished with decoration sought
from another source; I bear it with equanimity that a moderate degree of
talent has been granted to me. But it is not in reliance upon eloquence,
but upon the truth, that I have undertaken this work,--a work, perhaps, too
great to be sustained by my strength; which, however, even if I should
fail, the truth itself will complete, with the assistance of God, whose
office this is. For when I know that the greatest orators have often been
overcome by pleaders of moderate ability, because the power of truth is so
great that it defends itself even in small things by its own clearness: why
should I imagine that it will be overwhelmed in a cause of the greatest
importance by men who are ingenious and eloquent, as I admit, but who speak
false things; and not that it should appear bright and illustrious, if not
by our speech, which is very feeble, and flows from a slight fountain, but
by its own light? Nor, if there have been philosophers worthy of admiration
on account of their literary erudition, should I also yield to them the
knowledge and learning of the truth, which no one can attain to by
reflection or disputation. Nor do I now disparage the pursuit of those who
wished to know the truth, because God has made the nature of man most
desirous of arriving at the truth; but I assert and maintain this against
them, that the effect did not follow their honest and well-directed will,
because they neither knew what was true in itself, nor how, nor where, nor
with what mind it is to be sought. And thus, while they desire to remedy
the errors of men, they have become entangled in snares and the greatest
errors. I have therefore been led to this task of refuting philosophy by
the very order of the subject which I have undertaken.

   For since all error arises either from false religion or from
wisdom,(4) in refuting error it is necessary to overthrow both. For
inasmuch as it has been handed down to us in the sacred writings that the
thoughts of philosophers are foolish, this very thing iS to be proved by
fact and by arguments, that no one, induced by the honourable name of
wisdom, or deceived by the splendour of empty eloquence, may prefer to give
credence to human rather than to divine things. Which things, indeed, are
related in a concise and simple manner. For it was not befitting that, when
God was speaking to man, He should confirm His words by arguments, as
though He would not otherwise(1) be regarded with confidence: but, as it
was right, He spoke as the mighty Judge of all things, to whom it belongs
not to argue, but to pronounce sentence. He Himself, as God, is truth. But
we, since we have divine testimony for everything, will assuredly show by
how much surer arguments truth may be defended, when even false things are
so defended that they are accustomed to appear true. Wherefore there is no
reason why we should give so much honour to philosophers as to fear their
eloquence. For they might speak well as men of learning; but they could not
speak truly, because they had not learned the truth from Him in whose power
it was. Nor, indeed, shall we effect anything great in convicting them of
ignorance, which they themselves very often confess. Since they are not
believed in that one point alone in which alone they ought to have been
believed, I will endeavour to show that they never spoke so truly as when
they uttered their opinion respecting their own ignorance.

CHAP. II.--OF PHILOSOPHY, AND HOW VAIN WAS ITS OCCUPATION IN SETTING FORTH
THE TRUTH.

   Now, since the falsehood of superstitions(2) has been shown in the two
former books, and the origin itself of the whole error has been set forth,
it is the business of this book to show the emptiness and falsehood of
philosophy also, that,  all error being removed, the truth may be brought
to light and become manifest. Let us begin, therefore, from the common name
of philosophy, that when the head itself is destroyed, an easier approach
may be open to us for demolishing the whole body; if indeed that can be
called a body, the parts and members of which are at variance with one
another, and are not united together by any connecting link,(3) but, as it
were, dispersed and scattered, appear to palpitate rather than to live.
Philosophy is (as the name indicates, and they themselves define it) the
love of wisdom. By what argument, then, can I prove that philosophy is not
wisdom, rather than by that derived from the meaning of the name itself?
For he who devotes himself to wisdom is manifestly not yet wise, but
devotes himself to the subject that he may be wise. In the other arts it
appears what this devotedness effects, and to what it tends: for when any
one by learning has attained to these, he is now called, not a devoted
follower of the profession, but an artificer. But it is said it was on
account of modesty that they called themselves devoted to wisdom, and not
wise. Nay, in truth, Pythagoras, who first invented this name, since he had
a little more wisdom than those of early times, who regarded themselves as
wise, understood that it was impossible by any human study to attain to
wisdom, and therefore that a perfect name ought not to be applied to an
incomprehensible and imperfect subject. And, therefore, when he was asked
what was his profession,(4) he answered that he was a philosopher, that is,
a searcher after wisdom. If, therefore, philosophy searches after wisdom,
it is not wisdom itself, because it must of necessity be one thing which
searches, and another which is searched for; nor is the searching itself
correct, because it can find nothing.

   But I am not prepared to concede even that philosophers are devoted to
the pursuit of wisdom, because by that pursuit there is no attaining to
wisdom. For if the power of finding the truth were connected(5) with this
pursuit, and if this pursuit were a kind of road to wisdom, it would at
length be found. But since so much time and talent have been wasted in the
search for it, and it has not yet been gained, it is plain that there is no
wisdom there. Therefore they who apply themselves to philosophy do not
devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom; but they themselves imagine
that they do so, because they know not where that is which they are
searching for, or of what character it is. Whether, therefore, they devote
themselves to the pursuit of wisdom or not, they are not wise, because that
can never be discovered which is either sought in an improper manner, or
not sought at all. Let us look to this very thing, whether it is possible
for anything to be discovered by this kind of pursuit, or nothing.

CHAP. III.--OF WHAT SUBJECTS PHILOSOPHY CONSISTS, AND WHO WAS THE CHIEF
FOUNDER OF THE ACADEMIC SECT.

   Philosophy appears to consist of two subjects, knowledge and
conjecture, and of nothing more. Knowledge cannot come from the
understanding, nor be apprehended by thought; because to have knowledge in
oneself as a peculiar property does not belong to man, but to God. But the
nature of mortals does not receive knowledge, except that which comes from
without. For on this account the divine intelligence has opened the eyes
and ears and other senses in the body, that by these entrances knowledge
might flow through to the mind. For to investigate or wish to know the
causes of natural things,--whether the sun is as great as it appears to be,
or is many times greater than the whole of this earth; also whether the
moon be spherical or concave; and whether the stars are fixed to the
heaven, or are borne with free course through the air; of what magnitude
the heaven itself is, of what material it is composed; whether it is at
rest and immoveable, or is turned round with incredible swiftness; how
great is the thickness of the earth, or on what foundations it is poised
and suspended,--to wish to comprehend these things, I say, by disputation
and conjectures, is as though we should wish to discuss what we may suppose
to be the character of a city in some very remote country, which we have
never seen, and of which we have heard nothing more than the name. If we
should claim to ourselves knowledge in a matter of this kind, which cannot
be known, should we not appear to be mad, in venturing to affirm that in
which we may be refuted? How much more are they to be judged mad and
senseless, who imagine that they know natural things, which cannot be known
by man! Rightly therefore did Socrates, and the Academics(1) who followed
him, take away knowledge, which is not the part of a disputant, but of a
diviner. It remains that there is in philosophy conjecture only; for that
from which knowledge is absent, is entirely occupied by conjecture. For
every one conjectures that of which he is ignorant. But they who discuss
natural subjects, conjecture that they are as they discuss them. Therefore
they do not know the truth, because knowledge is concerned with that which
is certain, conjecture with the uncertain.

   Let us return to the example before mentioned. Come, let us conjecture
about the state and character of that city which is unknown to us in all
respects except in name. It is probable that it is situated on a plain,
with walls of stone, lofty buildings, many streets, magnificent and highly
adorned temples. Let us describe, if you please, the customs and deportment
of the citizens. But when we shall have described these, another will make
opposite statements; and when he also shall have concluded, a third will
arise, and others after him; and they will make very different conjectures
to those of ours. Which therefore of all is more true? Perhaps none of
them. But all things have been mentioned which the nature of the
circumstances admits, so that some one of them must necessarily be true.
But it will not be known who has spoken the truth. It may possibly be that
all have in some degree erred in their description, and that all have in
some degree attained to the truth. Therefore we are foolish if we seek this
by disputation; for some one may present himself who may deride our
conjectures, and esteem us as mad, since we wish to conjecture the
character of that which we do not know. But it is unnecessary to go in
quest of remote cases, from which perhaps no one may come to refute us.
Come, let us conjecture what is now going on in the forum, what in the
senate-house. That also is too distant. Let us say what is taking place
with the interposition of a single wall;(2) no one can know this but he who
has heard or seen it. No one therefore ventures to say this, because he
will immediately be refuted not by words, but by the presence of the fact
itself. But this is the very thing which philosophers do, who discuss what
is taking place in heaven, but think that they do that with impunity,
because there is no one to refute their errors. But if they were to think
that some one was about to descend who would prove them to be mad and
false, they would never discuss those subjects at all which they cannot
possibly know. Nor, however, is their shamelessness and audacity to be
regarded as more successful because they are not refuted; for God refutes
them to whom alone  the truth is known, although He may seem to connive at
their conduct, and He reckons such wisdom of men as the greatest folly.

CHAP.IV.--THAT KNOWLEDGE IS TAKEN AWAY BY SOCRATES, AND CONJECTURE BY ZENO.

   Zeno and the Stoics, then, were right in repudiating conjecture. For to
conjecture that you know that which you do not know, is not the part of a
wise, but rather of a rash and foolish man. Therefore if nothing can be
known, as Socrates taught, or ought to be conjectured, as Zeno taught,
philosophy is entirely removed. Why should I say that it is not only
overthrown by these two, who were the chiefs of philosophy, but by all, so
that it now appears to have been long ago destroyed by its own arms?
Philosophy has been divided into many sects; and they all entertain various
sentiments. In which do we place the truth? It certainly cannot be in all.
Let us point out some one; it follows that all the others will be without
wisdom. Let us pass through them separately; in the same manner, whatever
we shall give to one we shall take away from the others. For each
particular sect overturns all others, to confirm itself and its own
doctrines: nor does it allow wisdom to any other, lest it should confess
that it is itself foolish; but as it takes away others, so is it taken away
itself by all others. For they are nevertheless philosophers who accuse it
of folly. Whatever sect you shall praise and pronounce true, that is
censured by philosophers as false. Shall we therefore believe one which
praises itself and its doctrine, or the many which blame the ignorance of
each other? That must of necessity be better which is held by great
numbers, than that which is held by one only. For no one can rightly judge
concerning himself, as the renowned poet testifies;(1) for the nature of
men is so arranged, that they see and distinguish the affairs of others
better than their own. Since, therefore, all things are uncertain, we must
either believe all or none: if we are to believe no one, then the wise have
no existence, because while they separately affirm different things they
think themselves wise; if all, it is equally true that there are no wise
men, because all deny the wisdom of each individually. Therefore all are in
this manner destroyed; and as those fabled sparti(2) of the poets, so these
men mutually slay one another, so that no one remains of all; which happens
on this account, because they have a sword, but have no shield. If,
therefore, the sects individually are convicted of folly by the judgment of
many sects, it follows that all are found to be vain and empty; and thus
philosophy consumes and destroys itself. And since Arcesilas the founder of
the Academy understood this, he collected together the mutual censures of
all, and the confession of ignorance made by distinguished philosophers,
and armed himself against all. Thus he established a new philosophy of not
philosophizing. From this founder, therefore, there began to be two kinds
of philosophy: one the old one, which claims to itself knowledge; the other
a new one, opposed to the former, and which detracts from it. Between these
two kinds of philosophy I see that there is disagreement, and as it were
civil war. On which side shall we place wisdom, which cannot be torn
asunder?(3) If the nature of things can be known, this troop of recruits
will perish; if it cannot, the veterans will be destroyed: if they shall be
equal, nevertheless philosophy, the guide of all, will still perish,
because it is divided; for nothing can be opposed to itself without its own
destruction. But if, as I have shown, there can be no inner and peculiar
knowledge in man on account of the frailty of the human condition, the
party of Arcesilas prevails. But not even will this stand firm, because it
cannot be the case that nothing at all is known.

CHAP. V.--THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF MANY THINGS IS NECESSARY.

   For there are many things which nature itself, and frequent use, and
the necessity of life, compel us to know. Accordingly you must perish,
unless you know what things are useful for life, in order that you may seek
them; and what are dangerous, that you may shun and avoid them. Moreover,
there are many things which experience finds out. For the various courses
of the sun and moon, and the motions of the stars, and the computation of
times, have been discovered, and the nature of bodies, and the strength of
herbs by students of medicine, and by the cultivators of the land the
nature of soils, and signs of future rains and tempests have been
collected. In short, there is no art which is not dependent  on knowledge.
Therefore Arcesilas ought, if he had any wisdom, to have distinguished the
things which were capable of being known, and those which were incapable.
But if he had done this, he would have reduced himself to the common herd.
For the common people have sometimes more wisdom, because they are only so
far wise as is necessary. And if you inquire of them whether they know
anything or nothing, they will say that they know the things which they
know, and will confess that they are ignorant of what they are ignorant. He
was right, therefore, in taking away the systems of others, but he was not
right in laying the foundations of his own. For ignorance of all things
cannot be wisdom, the peculiar property of which is knowledge. And thus,
when he overcame the philosophers, and taught that they knew nothing, he
himself also lost the name of philosopher, because his system is to know
nothing. For he who blames others because they are ignorant, ought himself
to have knowledge; but when he knows nothing, what perverseness or what
insolence it is, to constitute himself a philosopher on account of that
very thing for which he takes away the others! For it is in their power to
answer thus: If you convict us of knowing nothing, and therefore of being
unwise because we know nothing, does it follow that you are not wise,
because you confess that you know nothing? What progress, therefore, did
Arcesilas make, except that, having despatched all the philosophers, he
pierced himself also with the same sword?

CHAP. VI.--OF WISDOM, AND THE ACADEMICS, AND NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.

   Does wisdom therefore nowhere exist? Yes, indeed, it was amongst them,
but no one saw it. Some thought that all things could be known: these were
manifestly not wise. Others thought that nothing could be known; nor indeed
were these wise: the former, because they attributed too much to man; the
latter, because they attributed too little. A limit was wanting to each on
either side. Where, then, is wisdom? It consists in thinking neither that
you know all things, which is the property of God; nor that you are
ignorant of all things, which is the part of a beast. For it is something
of a middle character which belongs to man, that is, knowledge united and
combined with ignorance. Knowledge in us is from the soul, which has its
origin from heaven; ignorance from the body, which is from the earth:
whence we have something in common with God, and with the animal creation.
Thus, since we are composed of these two elements, the one of which is
endowed with light, the other with darkness, a part of knowledge is given
to us, and a part of ignorance. Over this bridge, so to speak, we may pass
without any danger of falling; for all those who have inclined to either
side, either towards the left hand or the right, have fallen. But I will
say how each part has erred. The Academics argued from obscure subjects,
against the natural philosophers, that there was no knowledge; and
satisfied with the examples of a few incomprehensible subjects, they
embraced ignorance as though they had taken away the whole of knowledge,
because they had taken it away in part. But natural philosophers, on the
other hand, derived their argument from those things which are open, and
inferred that all things could be known, and, satisfied with things which
were manifest, retained knowledge; as if they had defended it altogether,
because they had defended it in part. And thus neither the one saw what was
clear, nor the others what was obscure; but each party, while they
contended with the greatest ardour either to retain or to take away
knowledge only, did not see that there would be placed in the middle that
which might guide them to wisdom.

   But Arcesilas, who teaches that there is no knowledge,(1) when he was
detracting from Zeno, the chief of the Stoics, that he might altogether
overthrow philosophy on the authority of Socrates, undertook this opinion
to affirm that nothing could be known. And thus he disproved the judgment
of the philosophers, who had thought that the truth was drawn forth,(2) and
found out by their talents,--namely, because that wisdom was mortal, and,
having been instituted a few ages before, had now attained to its greatest
increase, so that it was now necessarily growing old and perishing, the
Academy(3) suddenly arose, the old age, as it were, of philosophy, which
might despatch it now withering. And Arcesilas rightly saw that they are
arrogant, or rather foolish, who imagine that the knowledge of the truth
can be arrived at by conjecture. But no one can refute one speaking
falsely, unless he who shall have previously known what is true; but
Arcesilas, endeavouring to do this without a knowledge of the truth,
introduced a kind of philosophy which we may call unstable or
inconstant.(4) For, that nothing may be known, it is necessary that
something be known. For if you know nothing at all, the very knowledge that
nothing can be known will be taken away. Therefore he who pronounces as a
sentiment  that nothing is known, professes, as it were, some conclusion
already arrived at and known: therefore it is possible for something to be
known.

   Of a similar character to this is that which is accustomed to be
proposed in the schools as an example of the kind of fallacy called
asystaton; that some one had dreamt that he should not believe dreams. For
if he did believe them, then it follows that he ought not to  believe them.
But if he did not believe them, then it follows that he ought to believe
them. Thus, if nothing can be known, it is necessary that this fact must be
known, that nothing is known. But if it is known that nothing can be known,
the statement that nothing can be known must as a consequence be false.
Thus there is introduced a tenet opposed to itself, and destructive of
itself. But the evasive(5) man wished to take away learning from the other
philosophers, that he might conceal it at his home. For truly he is not for
taking it from himself who affirms anything that he may take it from
others: but he does not succeed; for it shows itself, and betrays its
plunderer. How much more wisely and truly he would act, if he should make
an exception, and say that the causes and systems of heavenly things only,
or natural things, because they are hidden, cannot be known, for there is
no one to teach them; and ought not to be inquired into. for they cannot be
found out by  inquiry! For if he had brought forward this exception, he
would both have admonished the natural philosophers not to search into
those things which exceeded the limit of human reflection; and would have
freed himself from the ill-will arising from calumny, and would certainly
have left us something to follow. But now, since he has drawn us back from
following others, that we may not wish to know more than we are capable of
knowing, he has no less drawn us back from himself also. For who would wish
to labour lest he should know anything? or to undertake learning of this
kind that he may even lose ordinary knowledge? For if this learning exists,
it must necessarily consist of knowledge; if it does not exist, who is so
foolish as to think that that is worthy of being learned, in which either
nothing is learned, or something is even unlearned? Wherefore, if all
things cannot be known, as the natural philosophers thought, nor nothing,
as the Academics taught, philosophy is altogether extinguished.

CHAP. VII.--OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, AND THE CHIEF GOOD.

   Let us now pass to the other part of philosophy, which they themselves
call moral, in which is contained the method of the whole of philosophy,
since in natural philosophy there is only delight, in this there is utility
also. And since it is more dangerous to commit a fault in arranging the
condition of life and in forming the character, greater diligence must be
used, that we may know how we ought to live. For in the former subject(1)
some indulgence may be granted: for whether they say anything, they bestow
no advantage; or if they foolishly rave, they do no injury. But in this
subject there is no room for difference of opinion, none for error. All
must entertain the same sentiments, and philosophy itself must give
instructions as it were with one mouth; because if any error shall be
committed, life is altogether overthrown. In that former part, as there is
less danger, so there is more difficulty; because the obscurity of the
subject compels us to entertain different and various opinions. But in
this, as there is more danger, so there is less difficulty; because the
very use of the subjects and daily experiments are able to teach what is
truer and better. Let us see, therefore, whether they agree, or what
assistance they give us for the better guidance of life. It is not
necessary to enlarge on every point; let us select one, and especially that
which is the chief and principal thing, in which the whole of wisdom
centres and depends.(2) Epicurus deems that the chief good consists in
pleasure of mind, Aristippus in pleasure of the body. Callipho and
Dinomachus united virtue with pleasure, Diodorus with the privation of
pain, Hieronymus placed the chief good in the absence of pain; the
Peripatetics, again, in the goods of the mind, the body, and fortune. The
chief good of Herillus is knowledge; that of Zeno, to live agreeably to
nature; that of certain Stoics, to follow virtue. Aristotle placed the
chief good in integrity and virtue. These are the sentiments of nearly all.
In such a difference of opinions, whom do we follow? whom do we believe?
All are of equal authority. If we are able to select that which is better,
it follows that philosophy is not necessary for us; because we are already
wise, inasmuch as we judge respecting the opinions of the wise. But since
we come for the sake of learning wisdom, how can we judge, who have not yet
begun to be wise? especially when the Academic is close at hand, to draw us
back by the cloak, and forbid us to believe any one, without bringing
forward that which we may follow.

CHAP. VIII.--OF THE CHIEF GOOD, AND THE PLEASURES OF THE SOUL AND BODY, AND
OF VIRTUE.

   What then remains, but that we leave raving and obstinate wranglers,
and come to the judge, who is in truth the giver of simple and calm wisdom?
which is able not only to mould us, and lead us into the way, but also to
pass an opinion on the controversies of those men. This teaches us what is
the true and highest good of man; but before I begin to speak on this
subject, all those opinions must be refuted, that it may appear that no one
of those philosophers was wise. Since the inquiry is respecting the duty of
man, the chief good of the chief animal ought to be placed in that which it
cannot have in common with the other animals. But as teeth are the peculiar
property of wild beasts, horns of cattle, and wings of birds, so something
peculiar to himself ought to be attributed to man, without which he would
lose the fixed(3) order of his condition. For that which is given to all
for the purpose of life or generation, is indeed a natural good; but still
it is not the greatest, unless it be peculiar to each class. Therefore he
was not a wise man who believed that pleasure of the mind is the chief
good, since that, whether it be freedom from anxiety or joy, is common to
all. I do not consider Aristippus even worthy of an answer; for since he is
always rushing into pleasures of the body, and is only the slave of sensual
indulgences, no one can regard him as a man: for he lived in such a manner
that there was no difference between him and a brute, except this only,
that he had the faculty of speech. But if the power of speaking were given
to the ass, or the dog, or swine, and you were to inquire from these why
they so furiously pursue the females, that they can scarcely be separated
from them, and even neglect their food and I drink; why they either drive
away other males, or do not abstain from the pursuit even when vanquished,
but often, when bruised by stronger animals, they are more determined in
their pursuit; why they dread neither rain nor cold; why they undertake
labour, and do not shrink from danger;--what other answer will they give,
but that the chief good is bodily pleasure?--that they eagerly seek it, in
order that they may be affected with the most agreeable sensations; and
that these are of so much importance, that, for the sake of attaining them,
they imagine that no labour, nor wounds, nor death itself, ought to be
refused by them? Shall we then seek precepts of living from these men, who
have no other feelings than those of the irrational creatures?

   The Cyrenaics say that virtue itself is to be praised on this account,
because it is productive of pleasure. True, says the filthy dog, or the
swine wallowing in the mire.(1) For it is on this account that I contend
with my adversary with the utmost exertion of strength, that my valour may
procure for me pleasure; of which I must necessarily be deprived if I shall
come off vanquished. Shall we therefore learn wisdom from these men, who
differ from cattle and the brutes, not in feeling, but in language? To
regard the absence of pain as the chief good, is not indeed the part of
Peripatetic and Stoic, but of clinical philosophers. For who would not
imagine that the discussion was carried on by those who were ill, and under
the influence of some pain? What is so ridiculous, as to esteem that the
chief good which the physician is able to give? We must therefore feel pain
in order that we may enjoy good; and that, too, severely and frequently,
that afterwards the absence of pain may be attended with greater pleasure.
He is therefore most wretched who has never felt pain, because he is
without that which is good; whereas we used to regard him as most happy,
because he was without evil. He was not far distant from this folly, who
said that the entire absence of pain was the chief good. For, besides the
fact that every animal avoids pain, who can bestow upon himself that good,
towards the obtaining of which we can do no more than wish? But the chief
good cannot make any one happy, unless it shall be always in his power; and
it is not virtue, nor learning, nor labour, which affords this to man, but
nature herself bestows it upon all living creatures. They who joined
pleasure with virtuous principle, wished to avoid this common blending
together of all, but they made a contradictory kind of good; since he who
is abandoned to pleasure must of necessity be destitute of virtuous
principle, and he who aims at principle must be destitute of pleasure.

   The chief good of the Peripatetics may possibly appear excessive,
various, and--excepting those goods which belong to the mind, and what they
are is a great subject of dispute--common to man with the beasts. For goods
belonging to the body--that is, safety, freedom from pain, health--are no
less necessary for dumb creatures than for man; and I know not if they are
not more necessary for them, because man can be relieved by remedies and
services, the dumb animals cannot. The same is true of those which they
call the goods of fortune; for as man has need of resources for the support
of life, so have they(2) need of prey and pasture. Thus, by introducing a
good which is not within the power of man, they made man altogether subject
to the power of another. Let us also hear Zeno, for he at times dreams of
virtue. The chief good, he says, is to live in accordance with nature.
Therefore we must live after the manner of the brutes. For in these are
found all the things which ought to be absent from man: they are eager for
pleasures, they fear, they deceive, they lie in wait, they kill; and that
which is especially to the point, they have no knowledge of God. Why,
therefore, does he teach me to live according to nature, which is of itself
prone to a worse course, and under the influence of some more soothing
blandishments plunges headlong into vices? Or if he says that the nature of
brutes is different from the nature of man, because man is born to virtue,
he says something to the purpose; but, however, it will not be a definition
of the chief good, because there is no animal which does not live in
accordance with its nature.

   He who made knowledge the chief good, gave something peculiar to man;
but men desire I knowledge for the sake of something else, and not for its
own sake. For who is contented with knowing, without seeking some advantage
from his knowledge? The arts are learned for the purpose of being put into
exercise; but they are exercised either for the support of life, or
pleasure, or for glory. That, therefore, is not the chief good which is not
sought for on its own account. What difference, therefore, does it make,
whether we consider knowledge to be the chief good, or those very things
which knowledge produces from itself, that is, means of subsistence, glory,
pleasure? And these things are not peculiar to man, and therefore they are
not the chief goods; for the desire of pleasure and of food does not exist
in man alone, but also in the brutes. How is it with regard to the desire
of glory? Is it not discovered in horses, since they exult in victory, and
are grieved when vanquished? "So great is their love of praises, so great
is their eagerness for victory."(3) Nor without reason does that most
excellent poet say that we must try "what grief they feel when overcome,
and how they rejoice in victory." But if those things which knowledge
produces are common to man with other animals, it follows that knowledge is
not the chief good. Moreover, it is no slight fault of this definition that
bare knowledge is set forth. For all will begin to appear happy who shall
have the knowledge of any art, even those who shall know mischievous
subjects; so that he who shall have learned to mix poisons, is as happy as
he who has learned to apply remedies. I ask, therefore, to what subject
knowledge is to be referred. If to the causes of natural things, what
happiness will be proposed to me, if I shall know the sources of the Nile,
or the vain dreams of the natural philosophers respecting the heaven? Why
should I mention that on these subjects there is no knowledge, but mere
conjecture, which varies according to the abilities of men? It only remains
that the knowledge of good and evil things is the chief good. Why, then,
did he call knowledge the chief good more than wisdom, when both words have
the same signification and meaning? But no one has yet said that the chief
good is wisdom, though this might more properly have been said. For
knowledge is insufficient for the undertaking of that which is good and
avoiding that which is evil, unless virtue also is added. For many of the
philosophers, though they discussed the nature of good and evil things, yet
from the compulsion of nature lived in a manner different from their
discourse, because they were without virtue. But virtue united with
knowledge is wisdom.

   It remains that we refute those also who judged virtue itself to be the
chief good, and Marcus Tullius was also of this opinion; and in this they
were very inconsiderate.(1) For virtue itself is not the chief good, but it
is the contriver and mother of the chief good; for this cannot be attained
without virtue. Each point is easily understood. For I ask whether they
imagine that it is easy to arrive at that distinguished good, or that it is
reached only with difficulty and labour? Let them apply their ingenuity,
and defend error. If it is easily attained to, and without labour, it
cannot be the chief good. For why should we torment ourselves, why wear
ourselves out with striving day and night, seeing that the object of our
pursuit is so close at hand, that any one who wishes may grasp it without
any effort of the mind? But if we do not attain even to a common and
moderate good except by labour, since good things are by their nature
arduous and difficult,(2) whereas evil things have a downward tendency, it
follows that the greatest labour is necessary for the attainment of the
greatest good. And if this is most true, then there is need of another
virtue, that we may arrive at that virtue which is called the chief good;
but this is incongruous and absurd, that virtue should arrive at itself by
means of itself. If no good can be reached unless by labour, it is evident
that it is virtue by which it is reached, since the force and office of
virtue consist in the undertaking and carrying through of labours.
Therefore the chief good cannot be that by which it is necessary to arrive
at another. But they, since they were ignorant of the effects and tendency
of virtue, and could discover nothing more honourable, stopped at the very
name of virtue, and said that it ought to be sought, though no advantage
was proposed from it; and thus they fixed for themselves a good which it
self stood in need of a good. From these Aristotle was not far removed, who
thought that virtue together with honour was the chief good; as though it
were possible for any virtue to exist unless it were honourable, and as
though it would not cease to be virtue if it had any measure of disgrace.
But he saw that it might happen that a bad opinion is entertained
respecting virtue by a depraved judgment, and therefore he thought that
deference should be paid to what in the estimation of men constitutes a
departure from what is right and good, because it is not in our power that
virtue should be honoured simply for its own deserts. For what is
honourable(3) character, except perpetual honour, conferred on any one by
the favourable report of the people? What, then, will happen, if through
the error and perverseness of men a bad reputation should ensue? Shall we
cast aside virtue because it is judged to be base and disgraceful by the
foolish? And since it is capable of being oppressed and harassed, in order
that it may be of itself a peculiar and lasting good, it ought to stand in
need of no outward assistance, so as not to depend by itself upon its own
strength, and to remain stedfast. And thus no good is to be hoped by it
from man, nor is any evil to be refused.

CHAP. IX.--OF THE CHIEF GOOD, AND THE WORSHIP OF THE TRUE GOD, AND A
REFUTATION OF ANAXAGORAS.

   I now come to the chief good of true wisdom, the nature of which is to
be determined in this manner: first, it must be the property of man alone,
and not belong to any other animal; secondly, it must belong to the soul
only, and not be shared with the body; lastly, it cannot fall to the lot of
any one without knowledge and virtue. Now this limitation excludes and does
away with all the opinions of those whom I have mentioned; for their
sayings contain nothing of this kind. I will now say what this is, that I
may show, as I designed, that all philosophers were blind and foolish, who
could neither see, nor understand, nor surmise at any time what was fixed
as the chief good for man. Anaxagoras, when asked for what purpose he was
born, replied that he might look upon the heaven and the sun. This
expression is admired by all, and judged worthy of a philosopher. But I
think that he, being unprepared with an answer, uttered this at random,
that he might(1) not be silent. But if he had been wise, he ought to have
considered and reflected with himself; for if any one is ignorant of his
own condition, he cannot even he a man. But let us imagine that the saying
was not uttered on the spur of the moment. Let us see how many and what
great errors he Committed in three words. First, he erred in placing the
whole duty of man in the eyes alone, referring nothing to the mind, but
everything to the body. But if he had been blind, would he lose the duty of
a man, which cannot happen without the ruin(2) of the soul? What of the
other parts of the body? Will they be destitute, each of its own duty? Why
should I say that more depends upon the ears than upon the eye, since
learning and wisdom can be gained by the ears only, but not by the eyes
only? Were you born for the sake of seeing the heaven and the sun? Who
introduced you to this(3) sight? or what does your vision contribute to the
heaven and the nature of things? Doubtless that you may praise this immense
and wonderful work. Therefore confess that God is the Creator of all
things, who introduced you into this world, as a witness and praiser of His
great work. You believe that it is a great thing to behold the heaven and
the sun: why, therefore, do you not give thanks to Him who is the author of
this benefit? why do you not measure with your mind the excellence, the
providence, and the power of Him whose works you admire? For it must be,
that He who created objects worthy of admiration, is Himself much more to
be admired. If any one had invited you to dinner, and you had been well
entertained, should you appear in your senses, if you esteemed the mere
pleasure more highly than the author of the pleasure? So entirely do
philosophers refer all things to the body, and nothing at all to the mind,
nor do they see beyond that which fails under their eyes. But all the
offices of the body being put aside, the business of man is to be placed in
the mind alone. Therefore we are not born for this purpose, that we may see
those things which are created, but that we may contemplate, that is,
behold with our mind, the Creator of all things Himself. Wherefore, if any
one should ask a man who is truly wise for what purpose he was born, he
will answer without fear or hesitation, that he was born for the purpose of
worshipping God, who brought us into being for his cause, that we may serve
Him. But to serve God is nothing else than to maintain and preserve justice
by good works. But he, as a man ignorant of divine things, reduced a matter
of the greatest magnitude to the least, by selecting two things only, which
he said were to be beheld by him. But if he had said that he was born to
behold the world, although he would comprise all things in this, and would
use an expression of greater(4) sound, yet he would not have completed the
duty of man; for as much as the soul excels the body, so much does God
excel the world, for God made and governs the world. Therefore it is not
the world which is to be contemplated by the eye, for each is a body;(5)
but it is God who is to be contemplated by the soul: for God, being Himself
immortal, willed that the soul also should be everlasting. But the
contemplation of God is the reverence and worship of the common Parent of
mankind. And if the philosophers were destitute of this, and in their
ignorance of divine things prostrated themselves to the earth, we must
suppose that Anaxagoras neither beheld the heaven nor the sun, though he
said that he was born that he might behold them. The object proposed to man
is therefore plain(6) and easy, if he is wise; and to it especially belongs
humanity.(7) For what is humanity itself, but justice? what is justice, but
piety? And piety(8) is nothing else than the recognition of God as a
parent.

CHAP.X.--IT IS THE PECULIAR PROPERTY OF MAN TO KNOW AND WORSHIP GOD.

   Therefore the chief good of man is in religion only; for the other
things, even those which are supposed to be peculiar to man, are found in
the other animals also. For when they discern and distinguish their own
voices(9) by peculiar marks among themselves, they seem to converse: they
also appear to have a kind of smile, when with soothed ears, and contracted
mouth, and with eyes relaxed to sportiveness, they fawn upon man, or upon
their own mates and young. Do they not give a greeting which bears some
resemblance to mutual love and indulgence? Again, those creatures which
look forward to the future and lay up for themselves food, plainly have
foresight. Indications of reason are also found in many of them. For since
they desire things useful to themselves, guard against evils, avoid
dangers, prepare for themselves lurking-places standing open in different
places with various outlets, assuredly they have some understanding. Can
any one deny that they are possessed of reason, since they often deceive
man himself? For those which have the office of producing honey, when they
inhabit the place assigned to them, fortify a camp, construct dwellings
with unspeakable skill, and obey their king; I know not if there is not in
them perfect prudence. It is therefore uncertain whether those things which
are given to man are common to him with other living creatures: they are
certainly without religion. I indeed thus judge, that reason is given to
all animals, but to the dumb creatures only for the protection of life, to
man also for its prolongation. And because reason itself is perfect in man,
it is named wisdom, which renders man distinguished in this respect, that
to him alone it is given to comprehend divine things. And concerning this
the opinion of Cicero is true: "Of so many kinds of animals," he says,
"there is none except man which has any knowledge of God; and among men
themselves, there is no nation either so uncivilized or so savage, which,
even if it is ignorant of due conceptions of the Deity, does not know that
some conception of Him ought to be entertained." From which it is effected,
that he acknowledges God, who,  as it were, calls to mind the source from
which he is sprung. Those philosophers, therefore, who wish to free the
mind from all fear, take away even religion, and thus deprive man of his
peculiar and surpassing good, which is distinct from living uprightly, and
from everything connected with man, because God, who made all living
creatures subject to man, also made man subject to Himself. What reason is
there why they should also maintain that the mind is to be turned in the
same direction to which the countenance is raised? For if we must look to
the heaven, it is undoubtedly for no other reason than on account of
religion; if religion is taken away, we have nothing to do with the heaven.
Therefore we must either look in that direction or bend down to the earth.
We are not able to bend down to the earth, even if we should wish, since
our posture is upright. We must therefore look up to the heaven, to which
the nature of the body calls us. And if it is admitted that this must be
done, it must either be done with this view, that we may devote ourselves
to religion, or that we may know the nature of the heavenly objects. But we
cannot by any means know the nature of the heavenly objects, because
nothing of that kind can be found out by reflection, as I have before
shown. We must therefore devote ourselves to religion, and he who does not
undertake this prostrates himself to the ground, and, imitating the life of
the brutes, abdicates the office of man. Therefore the ignorant are more
wise; for although they err in choosing religion, yet they remember their
own nature and condition.

CHAP. XI.--OF RELIGION, WISDOM, AND THE CHIEF GOOD.

   It is agreed upon, therefore, by the general consent of all mankind,
that religion ought to be undertaken; but we have to explain what errors
are committed on this subject. God willed this to be the nature of man,
that he should be desirous and eager for two things, religion and wisdom.
But men are mistaken in this, that they either undertake religion and pay
no attention to wisdom, or they devote themselves to wisdom alone, and pay
no attention to religion, though the one cannot be true without the other.
The consequence is, that they fall into a multiplicity of religions, but
false ones, because they have left wisdom, which could have taught them
that there cannot be many gods; or they devote themselves to wisdom, but a
false wisdom, because they have paid no attention to the religion of the
Supreme God, who might have instructed them to the knowledge of the truth.
Thus men who undertake either of these courses follow a devious path, and
one full of the greatest errors, inasmuch as the duty of man, and all
truth, are included in these two things which are inseparably connected. I
wonder, therefore, that there was none at all of the philosophers who
discovered the abode and dwelling-place of the chief good. For they might
have sought it in this manner. Whatever the greatest good is, it must be an
object proposed to all men. There is pleasure, which is desired by all; but
this is common also to man with the beasts, and has not the force of the
honourable, and brings a feeling of satiety, and when it is in excess is
injurious, and it is lessened by advance of age, and does not fall to the
lot of many: for they who are without resources, who constitute the greater
part of men, must also be without pleasure. Therefore pleasure is not the
chief good; but it is not even a good. What shall we say of riches? This is
much more(1) true of them. For they fall to the lot of fewer men, and that
generally by chance; and they often fall to the indolent, and sometimes by
guilt, and they are desired by those who already possess them. What shall
we say of sovereignty itself? That does not constitute the chief good: for
all cannot reign, but it is necessary that all should be capable of
attaining the chief good.

   Let us therefore seek something which is held forth to all. Is it
virtue? It cannot be denied that virtue is a good, and undoubtedly a good
for all men. But if it cannot be happy because its power and nature consist
in the endurance of evil, it assuredly is not the chief good. Let us seek
something else. But nothing can be found more beautiful than virtue,
nothing more worthy of a wise man. For if vices are to be avoided on
account of their deformity, virtue is therefore to be desired on account of
its beauty. What then? Can it be that that which is admitted to be good and
honourable should be requited with no reward, and be so unproductive as to
procure no advantage from itself? That great labour and difficulty and
struggling against evils with which this life is filled, must of necessity
produce some great good. But what shall we say that it is? Pleasure? But
nothing that is base can arise from that which is honourable. Shall we say
that it is riches? or commands? But these things are frail and
uncertain.(1) Is it glory? or honour? or a lasting name? But all these
things are not contained in virtue itself, but depend upon the opinion and
judgment of others. For virtue is often hated and visited with evil. But
the good which arises from it ought to be so closely united with it as to
be incapable of being separated or disunited from it; and it cannot appear
to be the chief good in any other way than if it belongs peculiarly to
virtue, and is such that nothing can be added to it or taken from it. Why
should I say that the duties of virtue consist in the despising of all
these things? For not to long for, or desire, or love pleasures, riches,
dominions, and honours, and all those things which are esteemed as goods,
as others do overpowered by desire, that assuredly is virtue. Therefore it
effects something else more sublime and excellent; nor does anything
struggle against these present goods but that which longs for greater and
truer things. Let us not despair of being able to find it, if we turn our
thoughts in all directions; for no slight or trifling rewards are sought.

CHAP. XII.--OF THE TWOFOLD CONFLICT OF BODY AND SOUL; AND OF DESIRING
VIRTUE ON ACCOUNT OF ETERNAL LIFE.

   But our inquiry is as to the object for which we are born: and thus we
are able to trace out what is the effect of virtue. There are two(2) parts
of which man is made up, soul and body. There are many things peculiar to
the soul, many peculiar to the body, many common to both, as is virtue
itself; and as often as this is referred to the body, it is called
fortitude for the sake of distinction. Since, therefore, fortitude is
connected with each, a contest is proposed to each, and victory held forth
to each from the contest: the body, because it is solid, and capable of
being grasped, must contend with objects which are solid and can be
grasped; but the soul, on the other hand, because it is slights and subtle,
and invisible, contends with those enemies who cannot be seen and touched.
But what are the enemies of the soul, but lusts, vices, and sins? And if
virtue shall have overcome and put to flight these, the soul will be pure
and free from stain. Whence, then, are we able to collect what are the
effects of fortitude of soul? Doubtless from that which is closely
connected with it, and resembles it, that is, from fortitude of the body;
for when this has come to any encounter and contest, what else does it seek
from victory but life? For whether you contend with a man or beast, the
contest is for safety. Therefore, as the body obtains by victory its
preservation from destruction, so the soul obtains a continuation of its
existence; and as the body, when over come by its enemies, suffers death,
so the soul, when overpowered by vices, must die. What difference,
therefore, will there be between the contest carried on by the soul and
that carried on by the body, except that the body seeks for temporal, but
the soul eternal life? If, therefore, virtue is not happy by itself, since
its whole force consists, as I have said, in the enduring of evils; if it
neglects all things which are desired as goods; if in its highest condition
it is exposed to death, inasmuch as it often refuses life, which is desired
by others, and bravely undergoes death, which others fear; if it must
necessarily produce some great good from itself, because labours, endured
and overcome even until death, cannot fail of obtaining a reward; if no
reward, such as it deserves, is found on earth, inasmuch as it despises all
things which are frail and transitory, what else remains but that it may
effect some heavenly reward, since it treats with contempt all earthly
things, and may aim at higher things, since it despises things that are
humble? And this reward can be nothing else but immortality.

   With good reason, therefore, did Euclid, no obscure philosopher, who
was the founder of the system of the Megareans, differing from the others,
say that that was the chief good which was unvarying and always the same.
He certainly understood what is the nature of the chief good, although he
did not explain in what it consisted; but it consists of immortality, nor
anything else at all, inasmuch as it alone is incapable of diminution, or
increase, or change. Seneca also unconsciously happened to confess that
there is no other reward of virtue than immortality. For in praising virtue
in the treatise which he wrote on the subject of premature death, he says:
"Virtue is the only thing which can confer upon us immortality, and make us
equal to the gods." But the Stoics also, whom he followed, say that no one
can be made happy without virtue. Therefore, the reward of virtue is a
happy life, if virtue, as it is rightly said, makes a happy life. Virtue,
therefore, is not, as they say, to be sought on its own account, but on
account of a happy life, which necessarily follows virtue. And this
argument might have taught them in what the chief good consisted. But this
present and corporeal life cannot be happy, because it is subjected to
evils through the body. Epicurus calls God happy and incorruptible, because
He is everlasting. For a state of happiness ought to be perfect, so that
there may be nothing which can harass, or lessen, or change it. Nor can
anything be judged happy in other respects, unless it be incorruptible. But
nothing is incorruptible but that which is immortal. Immortality therefore
is alone happy, because it can neither be corrupted nor destroyed. But if
virtue falls within the power of man, which no one can deny, happiness also
belongs to him. For it is impossible for a man to be wretched who is endued
with virtue. If happiness falls within his power, then immortality, which
is possessed of the attribute of happiness, also belongs to him.

   The chief good, therefore, is found to be immortality alone, which
pertains to no other animal or body; nor can it happen to any one without
the virtue of knowledge, that is, without the knowledge of God and justice.
And how true and right is the seeking for this, the very desire of this
life shows: for although it be but temporary, and most full of labour, yet
it is sought and desired by all; for both old men and boys, kings and those
of the lowest station, in fine, wise as well as foolish, desire this. Of
such value, as it seemed to Anaxagoras, is the contemplation of the heaven
and the light itself, that men willingly undergo any miseries on this
account. Since, therefore, this short and laborious life, by the general
consent not only of men, but also of other animals, is considered a great
good, it is manifest that it becomes also a very great and perfect good if
it is without an end and free from all evil. In short, there never would
have been any one who would despise this life, however short it is, or
undergo death, unless through the hope of a longer life. For those who
voluntarily offered themselves to death for the safety of their countrymen,
as Menoeceus did at Thebes, Codrus at Athens, Curtius and the two Mures at
Rome, would never have preferred death to the advantages of life, unless
they had thought that they should attain to immortality through the
estimation of their countrymen; and although they were ignorant of the life
of immortality, yet the reality itself did not escape their notice. For if
virtue despises opulence and riches because they are frail, and pleasures
because they are of brief continuance, it therefore despises a life which
is frail and brief, that it may obtain one which is substantial and
lasting. Therefore reflection itself, advancing by regular order, and
weighing everything, leads us to that excellent and surpassing good, on
account of which we are born. And if philosophers had thus acted, if they
had not preferred obstinately to maintain that which they had once
apprehended, they would undoubtedly have arrived at this truth, as I have
lately shown. And if this was not the part of those who extinguish the
heavenly souls together with the body, yet those who discuss the
immortality of the soul ought to have understood that virtue is set before
us on this account, that, lusts having been subdued, and the desire of
earthly things overcome, our souls, pure and victorious, may return to God,
that is, to their original source. For it is on this account that we alone
of living creatures are raised to the sight of the heaven, that we may
believe that our chief good is in the highest place. Therefore we alone
receive religion, that we may know from this source that the spirit of man
is not mortal, since it longs for and acknowledges God, who is immortal.

   Therefore, of all the philosophers, those who have embraced either
knowledge or virtue as the chief good, have kept the way of truth, but have
not arrived at perfection. For these are the two things which together make
up that which is sought for. Knowledge causes us to know by what means and
to what end we must attain; virtue causes us to attain to it. The one
without the other is of no avail; for from knowledge arises virtue, and
from virtue the chief good is produced. Therefore a happy life, which
philosophers have always sought, and still do seek, has no existence either
in the worship of the gods or in philosophy; and on this account they were
unable to find it, because they did not seek the highest good in the
highest place, but in the lowest. For what is the highest but heaven, and
God, from whom the soul has its origin? And what is the lowest but the
earth, from which the body is made? Therefore, although some philosophers
have assigned the chief good, not to the body, but to the soul, yet,
inasmuch as they have referred it to this life, which has its ending with
the body, they have gone back to the body, to which the whole of this time
which is passed on earth has reference. Therefore it was not without reason
that they did not attain to the highest good; for whatever looks to the
body only, and is without immortality, must necessarily be the lowest.
Therefore happiness does not fall to the condition of man in that manner in
which philosophers thought; but it so falls to him, not that he should then
be happy, when he lives in the body, which must undoubtedly be corrupted in
order to its dissolution; but then, when, the soul being freed from
intercourse with the body, he lives in the spirit only. In this one thing
alone can we be happy in this life, if we appear to be unhappy; if,
avoiding the enticements of pleasures, and giving ourselves to the service
of virtue only, we live in all labours and miseries, which are the means of
exercising and strengthening virtue; if, in short, we keep to that rugged
and difficult path which has been opened for us to happiness. The chief
good therefore which makes men happy cannot exist, unless it be in that
religion and doctrine to which is annexed the hope of immortality.

CHAP. XIII.--OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, AND OF WISDOM, PHILOSOPHY, AND
ELOQUENCE.

   The subject seems to require in this place, that since we have taught
that immortality is the chief good, we should prove this also, that the
soul is immortal. On which subject there is great disputation among
philosophers; nor have they who held true opinions respecting the soul been
able to explain or prove anything: for, being destitute of divine
knowledge, they neither brought forward true arguments by which they might
overcome, nor evidence by which they might convince. But we shall treat of
this question more conveniently in the last book, when we shall have to
discuss the subject of a happy life. There remains that third part of
philosophy, which they call Logic, in which the whole subject of dialectics
and the whole method of speaking are contained. Divine learning does not
stand in need of this, because the seat of wisdom is not the tongue, but
the heart; and it makes no difference what kind of language you employ, for
the question is not about words,(1) but facts. And we are not disputing
about the grammarian or the orator, whose knowledge is concerned with the
proper manner of speaking, but about the wise man, whose learning is
concerned with the right manner of living. But if that system of natural
philosophy before mentioned is not necessary, nor this of logic, because
they are not able to render a man happy, it remains that the whole force of
philosophy is contained in the ethical part alone, to which Socrates is
said to have applied himself, laying aside the others. And since I have
shown that philosophers erred in this part also, who did not grasp the
chief good, for the sake of gaining which we are born; it appears that
philosophy is altogether false and empty, since it does not prepare us for
the duties of justice, nor strengthen the obligations and settled course of
man's life. Let them know, therefore, that they are in error who imagine
that philosophy is wisdom; let them not be drawn away by the authority of
any one; but rather let them incline to the truth, and approach it. There
is no room for rashness here; we must endure the punishment of our folly to
all eternity, if we shall be deceived either by an empty character or a
false opinion. But man,(2) such as he is, if he trusts in himself, that is,
if he trusts in man, is (not to say foolish, in that he does not see his
own error) undoubtedly arrogant, in venturing to claim for himself that
which the condition of man does not admit of.

   And how much that greatest author of the Roman language is deceived, we
may see from that sentiment of his; for when, in his "Books on Offices,"(3)
he had said that philosophy is nothing else than the desire of wisdom, and
that wisdom itself is the knowledge of things divine and human, added: "And
if any one censures the desire Of this, I do not indeed understand what
there is which he imagines praiseworthy. For if enjoyment of the mind and
rest from cares is sought, what enjoyment can be compared with the pursuits
of those who are always inquiring into something which has reference to and
tends to promote a good and happy life? Or if any account is taken of
consistency and virtue, either this is the study(4) by which we may attain
them, or there is none at all. To say that there is no system in connection
with the greatest subjects, when none of the least is without a system, is
the part of men speaking inconsiderately, and erring in the greatest
subjects. But if there is any discipline of virtue, where shall it be
sought when you have departed from that kind of learning?" For my own part,
although I endeavoured to attain in some degree to the means of acquiring
learning, on account of my desire to teach others, yet I have never been
eloquent, inasmuch as I never even engaged in public speaking; but the
goodness of the cause cannot fail of itself to make me eloquent, and for
its clear and copious defence the knowledge of divinity and the truth
itself are sufficient. I could wish, therefore, that Cicero might for a
short time rise from the dead, that a man of such consummate eloquence
might be taught by an insignificant person who is devoid of eloquence,
first, what that is which is deemed worthy of praise by him who blames that
study which is called philosophy; and in the next place, that it is not
that study by which virtue and justice are learned, nor any other, as he
thought; and lastly, that since there is a discipline of virtue, he might
be taught where it is to be sought, when you have laid aside that kind of
learning, which he did not seek for the sake of hearing and learning. For
from whom could he hear when no one knew it? But, as his usual practice was
in pleading causes, he wished to press his opponent by questioning, and
thus to lead him to confession, as though he were confident that no answer
could be given to show that philosophy was not the instructress of virtue.
And in the Tusculan disputations he openly professed this, turning his
speech to philosophy, as though he was showing himself off by a declamatory
style of speaking. "O philosophy, thou guide of life," he says; "O thou
investigator of virtue, and expeller of vices; what could not only we, but
the life of men, have effected at all without thee? Thou hast been the
inventor of laws, thou the teacher of morals and discipline;"--as though,
indeed, she could perceive anything by herself, and he were not rather to
be praised who gave her. In the same manner he might have given thanks to
food and drink, because without these life could not exist; yet these,
while they minister to sense, confer no benefit. But as these things are
the nourishment of the body, so wisdom is of the soul.

CHAP. XIV.--THAT LUCRETIUS AND OTHERS HAVE ERRED, AND CICERO HIMSELF, IN
FIXING THE ORIGIN OF WISDOM.

   Lucretius, accordingly, acts more correctly in praising him who was the
first discoverer of wisdom; but he acts foolishly in this, that he supposed
it to be discovered by a man,--as though that man whom he praises had found
it lying somewhere as flutes at the fountain,(1) according to the legends
of the poets. But if he praised the inventor of wisdom as a god,--for thus
he speaks:(2)--

"No one, I think, who is formed of mortal body. For if we must speak, as
the acknowledged majesty of the subject itself demands, he was a god, he
was a god, most noble Memmius,"--

yet God ought not to have been praised on this account, because He
discovered wisdom, but because He created man, who might be capable of
receiving wisdom. For he diminishes the praise who praises a part only of
the whole. But he praised Him as a man; whereas He ought to have been
esteemed as a God on this very account, because He found out wisdom. For
thus he speaks:(3)--

"Will it not be right that this man should be enrolled among the gods?"

From this it appears, either that he wished to praise Pythagoras, who was
the first, as I have said,(4) to call himself a philosopher; or Thales of
Miletus, who is reported to have been the first who discussed the nature of
things. Thus, while he seeks to exalt, he has depressed the thing itself.
For it is not great if it could have been discovered by man. But he may be
pardoned as a poet. But that same accomplished orator, that same consummate
philosopher, also censures the Greeks, whose levity he always accuses, and
yet imitates. Wisdom itself, which at one time he calls the gift, at
another time the invention, of the gods, he fashions after the manner of
the poets, and praises on account of its beauty. He also grievously
complains that there have been some who disparaged it. "Can any one," he
says, "dare to censure the parent of life, and to defile himself with this
guilt of parricide, and to be so impiously ungrateful?"

   Are we then parricides, Marcus Tullius, and in your judgment worthy to
be sewed(5) up in a bag, who deny that philosophy is the parent of life? Or
you, who are so impiously ungrateful towards God (not this god whose image
you worship as he sits in the Capitol, but Him who made the world and
created man, who bestowed wisdom also among His heavenly benefits), do you
call her the teacher of virtue or the parent of life, having learned(6)
from whom, one must be in much greater uncertainty than he was before? For
of what virtue is she the teacher? For philosophers to the present time do
not explain where she is situated. Of what life is she the parent? since
the teachers themselves have been worn out by old age and death before they
have determined upon the befitting course of life. Of what truth can you
hold her forth as an explorer? since you often testify that, in so great a
multitude of philosophers, not a single wise man has yet existed. What,
then, did that mistress of life teach you? Was it to assail with reproaches
the most powerful consul,(7) and by your envenomed speeches to render him
the enemy of his country? But let us pass by those things, which may be
excused under the name of fortune. You applied yourself, in truth, to the
study of philosophy, and so, indeed, that no one ever applied himself more
diligently; since you were acquainted with all the systems of philosophy,
as you yourself are accustomed to oast, and elucidated the subject itself
in Latin writings, and displayed yourself as an imitator of Plato. Tell us,
therefore, what you have learned, or in what sect you have discovered the
truth. Doubtless it was in the Academy which you followed and approved. But
this teaches nothing, excepting that you know your own ignorance.(1)
Therefore your own books refute you, and show the nothingness of the
learning which may be gained from philosophy for life. These are your
words: "But to me we appear not only blind to wisdom, but dull and obtuse
to those very things which may appear in some degree to be discerned." If,
therefore, philosophy is the teacher of life, why did you appear to
yourself blind, and dull, and obtuse? whereas you ought, under her
teaching, both to perceive and to be wise, and to be engaged in the
clearest light. But how you confessed the truth of philosophy we learn from
the letters addressed to your son, in which you advise him that the
precepts of philosophy ought to be known, but that we must live as members
of a community.(2)

   What can be spoken so contradictory? If the precepts of philosophy
ought to be known, it is on this account that they ought to be known, in
order to our living well and wisely. Or if we must live as members of a
community, then philosophy is not wisdom, if it is better to live in
accordance with society than with philosophy. For if that which is called
philosophy be wisdom, he assuredly lives foolishly who does not live
according to philosophy. But if he does not live foolishly who lives in
accordance with society, it follows that he who lives according to
philosophy lives foolishly. By your own judgment, therefore, philosophy is
condemned of folly and emptiness. And you also, in your Consolation, that
is, not in a work of levity and mirth, introduced this sentiment respecting
philosophy: "But I know not what error possesses us, or deplorable
ignorance of the truth." Where, then, is the guidance of philosophy? or
what has that parent of life taught you, if you are deplorably ignorant of
the truth? But if this confession of error and ignorance has been extorted
almost against your will from your innermost breast, why do you not at
length acknowledge to yourself the truth, that philosophy which, though it
teaches nothing, you extolled with praises to the heavens, cannot be the
teacher of virtue?

CHAP. XV.--THE ERROR OF SENECA IN PHILOSOPHY, AND HOW THE SPEECH OF
PHILOSOPHERS IS AT VARIANCE WITH THEIR LIFE.

   Under the influence of the same error (for who could keep the right
course when Cicero is in error?), Seneca said: "Philosophy is nothing else
than the right method of living, or the science of living honourably, or
the art of passing a good life. We shall not err in saying that philosophy
is the law of living well and honourably. And he who spoke of it as a rule
of life, gave to it that which was its due." He evidently did not refer to
the common name of philosophy; for, since this is diffused into many sects
and systems, and has nothing certain--nothing, in short, respecting which
all agree with one mind and one voice,--what can be so false as that
philosophy should be called the rule of life, since the diversity of its
precepts hinders the right way and causes confusion? or the law of living
well, when its subjects are widely discordant? or the science of passing
life, in which nothing else is effected by its repeated contradictions than
general(3) uncertainty? For I ask whether he thinks that the Academy is
philosophy or not? I do not think that he will deny it. And if this is so,
none of these things, therefore, is in agreement with philosophy; which
renders all things uncertain, abrogates law, esteems art as nothing,
subverts method, distorts rule, entirely takes away knowledge. Therefore
all those things are false, because they are inconsistent with a system
which is always uncertain, and up to this time explaining nothing.
Therefore no system, or science, or law of living well, has been
established, except in this the only true and heavenly wisdom, which had
been unknown to philosophers. For that earthly wisdom, since it is false,
becomes varied and manifold, and altogether opposed to itself. And as there
is but one founder and ruler of the world, God, and as truth is one; so
wisdom must be one and simple, because, if anything is true and good, it
cannot be perfect unless it is the only one of its kind. But if philosophy
were able to form the life, no others but philosophers would be good, and
all those who had not learned it would be always bad. But since there are,
and always have been, innumerable persons who are or have been good without
any learning, but of philosophers there has seldom been one who has done
anything praiseworthy in his life; who is there, I pray, who does not see
that those men are not teachers of virtue, of which they themselves are
destitute? For if any one should diligently inquire into their character,
he will find that they are passionate, covetous, lustful, arrogant, wanton,
and, concealing their vices under a show of wisdom, doing those things at
home which they had censured in the schools.(1)

   Perhaps I speak falsely for the sake of bringing an accusation. Does
not Tullius both acknowledge and complain of the same thing? "How few," he
says, "of philosophers are found of such a character, so constituted in
soul and life, as reason demands! how few who think true instruction not a
display of knowledge, but a law of life! how few who are obedient to
themselves, and submit to their own decrees! We may see some of such levity
and ostentation, that it would be better for them not to have learned at
all; others eagerly desirous of money, others of glory; many the slaves of
lusts, so that their speech wonderfully disagrees with their life."
Cornelius Nepos also writes to the same Cicero: "So far am I from thinking
that philosophy is the teacher of life and the completer of happiness, that
I consider that none have greater need of teachers of living than many who
are engaged in the discussion of this subject. For I see that a great part
of those who give most elaborate precepts in their school respect-modesty
and self-restraint, live at the same time in the unrestrained desires of
all lusts." Seneca also, in his Exhortations, says: "Many of the
philosophers are of this description, eloquent to their own condemnation:
for if you should hear them arguing against avarice, against lust and
ambition, you would think that they were making a public disclosure(2) of
their own character, so entirely do the censures which they utter in public
flow back upon themselves; so that it is right to regard them in no other
light than as physicians, whose advertisements(3) contain medicines, but
their medicine chests poison. Some are not ashamed of their vices; but they
invent defences for their baseness, so that they may appear even to sin
with honour." Seneca also says: "The wise man will even do things which he
will not approve of, that he may find means of passing to the
accomplishment of greater things; nor will he abandon good morals, but will
adapt them to the occasion; and those things which others employ for glory
or pleasure, he will employ for the sake of action." Then he says shortly
afterwards: "All things which the luxurious and the ignorant do, the wise
man also will do, but not in the same manner, and with the same purpose.
But it makes no difference with what intention you act, when the action
itself is vicious; because acts are seen, the intention is not seen."

   Aristippus, the master of the Cyrenaics, had a criminal intimacy with
Lais, the celebrated courtesan; and that grave teacher of philosophy
defended this fault by saying, that there was a great difference between
him and the other lovers of Lais, because he himself possessed Lais,
whereas others were possessed by Lais. O illustrious wisdom, to be imitated
by good men! Would you, in truth, entrust your children to this man for
education, that they might learn to possess a harlot? He said that there
was some difference between himself and the dissolute, that they wasted
their property, whereas he lived in indulgence without any cost. And in
this the harlot was plainly the wiser, who had the philosopher as her
creature, that all the youth, corrupted by the example and authority of the
teacher, might flock together to her without any shame. What difference
therefore did it make, with what intention the philosopher betook himself
to that most notorious harlot, when the people and his rivals saw him more
depraved than all the abandoned? Nor was it enough to live in this manner,
but he began also to teach lusts; and he transferred his habits from the
brothel to the school, contending that bodily pleasure was the chief good.
Which pernicious and shameful doctrine has its origin not in the heart of
the philosopher, but in the bosom of the harlot.

   For why should I speak of the Cynics, who practised licentiousness in
public? What wonder if they derived their name and title from dogs,(4)
since they also imitated their life? Therefore there is no instruction of
virtue in this sect, since even those who enjoin more honourable things
either themselves do not practise what they advise; or if they do (which
rarely happens), it is not the system which leads them to that which is
right, but nature which often impels even the unlearned to praise.

CHAP. XVI.--THAT THE PHILOSOPHERS WHO GIVE GOOD INSTRUCTIONS LIVE BADLY, BY
THE TESTIMONY OF CICERO; THEREFORE WE SHOULD NOT SO MUCH DEVOTE OURSELVES
TO THE STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY AS TO WISDOM.

   But when they give themselves up to perpetual sloth, and undertake no
exercise of virtue, and pass their whole life in the practice of speaking,
in what light ought they to be regarded rather than as triflers? For
wisdom, unless it is engaged on some action on which it may exert its
force, is empty and false; and Tullius rightly gives the preference, above
teachers of philosophy, to those men employed in civil affairs, who govern
the state, who found new cities or maintain with equity those already
founded, who preserve the safety and liberty of the citizens either by good
laws or wholesome counsels, or by weighty judgments. For it is right to
make men good rather than to give precepts about duty to those shut up in
corners, which precepts are not observed even by those who speak them; and
inasmuch as they have withdrawn themselves from true actions, it is
manifest that they invented the system of philosophy itself, for the
purpose of exercising the tongue, or for the sake of pleading. But they who
merely teach without acting, of themselves detract from the weight of their
own precepts; for who would obey, when they who give the precepts
themselves teach disobedience? Moreover, it is a good thing to give right
and honourable precepts; but unless you also practise them it is a deceit,
and it is inconsistent and trifling to have goodness not in the heart, but
on the lips.

   It is not therefore utility, but enjoyment, which they seek from
philosophy. And this Cicero indeed testified. "Truly," he says, "all their
disputation, although it contains most abundant fountains of virtue and
knowledge, yet, when compared with their actions and accomplishments, I
fear lest it should seem not to have brought so much advantage to the
business of men as enjoyment to their times of relaxation." He ought not to
have feared, since he spoke the truth; but as if he were afraid lest he
should be arraigned by the philosophers on a charge of betraying a mystery,
he did not venture confidently to pronounce that which was true, that they
do not dispute for the purpose of teaching, but for their own enjoyment in
their leisure; and since they are the advisers of actions, and do not
themselves act at all, they are to be regarded as mere talkers.(1) But
assuredly, because they contributed no advantage to life, they neither
obeyed their own decrees, nor has any one been found, through so many ages,
who lived in accordance with their laws. Therefore philosophy(2) must
altogether be laid aside, because we are not to  devote ourselves to the
pursuit of wisdom, for this has no limit or moderation; but we must be
wise, and that indeed quickly. For a second life is not granted to us, so
that when we seek wisdom in this life we may be wise in that; each result
must be brought about in this life. It ought to be quickly found, in order
that it may be quickly taken up, lest any part of life should pass away,
the end of which is uncertain. Hortensius in Cicero, contending against
philosophy, is pressed by a clever argument; inasmuch as, when he said that
men ought not to philosophize, he seemed nevertheless to philosophize,
since it is the part of the philosophers to discuss what ought and what
ought not to be done in life. We are free and exempt from this calumny, who
take away philosophy, because it is the invention of human thought; we
defend wisdom, because it is a divine tradition, and we testify that it
ought to be taken up by all. He, when he took away philosophy without
introducing anything better, was supposed to take away wisdom; and on that
account was more easily driven from his opinion, because it is agreed upon
that man is not born to folly, but to wisdom.

   Moreover, the argument which the same Hortensius employed has great
weight also against philosophy,--namely, that it may be understood from
this, that philosophy is not wisdom, since its beginning and origin are
apparent. When, he says, did philosophers begin to exist? Thales, as I
imagine, was the first, and his age was recent. Where, then, among the more
ancient men did that love of investigating the truth lie hid? Lucretius
also says:(3)--

"Then, too, this nature and system of things has been discovered lately,
and I the very first of all have only now been found able to transfer it
into native words."

And Seneca says: "There are not yet a thousand years since the beginnings
of wisdom were undertaken." Therefore mankind for many generations lived
without system. In ridicule of which, Persius says:(4)--

   "When wisdom came to the city,
   Together with pepper and palms;"

as though wisdom had been introduced into the city together with savoury
merchandise.(5) For if it is in agreement with the nature of man, it must
have had its commencement together with man; but if it is not in agreement
with it, human nature would be incapable of receiving it. But, inasmuch as
it has received it, it follows that wisdom has existed from the beginning:
therefore philosophy, inasmuch as it has not existed from the beginning, is
not the same true wisdom. But, in truth, the Greeks, because they had not
attained to the sacred letters of truth, did not know how wisdom was
corrupted. And, therefore, since they thought that human life was destitute
of wisdom, they invented philosophy; that is, they wished by discussion to
tear up the truth which was lying hid and unknown to them: and this
employment, through ignorance of the truth, they thought to be wisdom.

CHAP. XVII.--HE PASSES FROM PHILOSOPHY TO THE PHILOSOPHERS, BEGINNING WITH
EPICURUS; AND HOW HE REGARDED LEUCIPPUS AND DEMOCRITUS AS AUTHORS OF ERROR.

   I have spoken on the subject of philosophy itself as briefly as I
could; now let us come to the philosophers, not that we may contend with
these, who cannot maintain their ground, but that we may pursue those who
are in flight and driven from our battle-field. The system of Epicurus was
much more generally followed than those of the others; not because it
brings forward any truth, but because the attractive name of pleasure
invites many.(1) For every one is naturally inclined to vices. Moreover,
for the purpose of drawing the multitude to himself, he speaks that which
is specially adapted to each character separately. He forbids the idle to
apply himself to learning; he releases the covetous man from giving
largesses to the people; he prohibits the inactive man from undertaking the
business of the state, the sluggish from bodily exercise, the timid from
military service. The irreligious is told that the gods pay no attention to
the conduct of men; the man who is unfeeling and selfish is ordered to give
nothing to any one, for that the wise man does everything on his own
account. To a man who avoids the crowd, solitude is praised. One who is too
sparing, learns that life can be sustained on water and meal. If a man
hates his wife, the blessings of celibacy are enumerated to him; to one who
has bad children, the happiness of those who are without children is
proclaimed; against unnatural(2) parents it is said that there is no bond
of nature. To the man who is delicate and incapable of endurance, it is
said that pain is the greatest of all evils; to the man of fortitude, it is
said that the wise man is happy even under tortures. The man who devotes
himself to the pursuit of influence and distinction is enjoined to pay
court to kings; he who cannot endure annoyance is enjoined to shun the
abode of kings. Thus the crafty man collects an assembly from various and
differing characters; and while he lays himself out to please all, he is
more at variance with himself than they all are with one another. But we
must explain from what source the whole of this system is derived, and what
origin it has.

   Epicurus saw that the good are always subject to adversities, poverty,
labours, exile, loss of  dear friends. On the contrary, he saw that the
wicked were happy; that they were exalted with influence, and loaded with
honours; he saw that innocence was unprotected, that crimes were committed
with impunity: he saw that death raged without any regard to character,
without any arrangement or discrimination of age; but that some arrived at
old age, while others were carried off in their infancy; that some died
when they were now robust and vigorous, that others were cut off by an
untimely death in the first flower of youth; that in wars the better men
were especially overcome and slain. But that which especially moved him,
was the fact that religious men were especially visited with weightier
evils, whereas he saw that less evils or none at all fell upon those who
altogether neglected the gods, or worshipped them in an impious manner; and
that even the very temples themselves were often set on fire by lightning.
And of this Lucretius complains,(3) when he says respecting the god:--

"Then he may hurl lightnings, and often throw down his temples, and
withdrawing into the deserts, there spend his rage in practising his bolt,
which often passes the guilty by, and strikes dead the innocent and
unoffending."

But if he had been able to collect even a small particle of truth, he would
never say that the god throws down his own temples, when he throws them
down on this account, because they are not his. The Capitol, which is the
chief seat of the Roman city and religion, was struck with lightning and
set on fire not once only, but frequently. But what was the opinion of
clever men respecting this is evident from the saying of Cicero, who says
that the flame came from heaven, not to destroy that earthly dwelling-place
of Jupiter, but to demand a loftier and more magnificent abode. Concerning
which transaction, in the books respecting his consulship, he speaks to the
same purport as Lucretius:--

"For the father thundering on high, throned in the lofty Olympus, himself
assailed his own citadels and famed temples, and cast fires upon his abode
in the Capitol.

In the obstinacy of their folly, therefore, they not only did not
understand the power and majesty of the true God, but they even increased
the impiety of their error, in endeavouring against all divine law to
restore a temple so often condemned by the judgment of Heaven.

   Therefore, when Epicurus reflected on these things, induced as it were
by the injustice of these matters (for thus it appeared to him in his
ignorance of the cause and subject), he thought that there was no
providence.(4) And having persuaded himself of this, he undertook also to
defend it, and thus he entangled himself in inextricable errors. For if
there is no providence, how is it that the world was made with such order
and arrangement? He says: There is no arrangement, for many things are made
in a different manner from that in which they ought to have been made. And
the divine man found subjects of censure. Now, if I had leisure to refute
these things separately, I could easily show that this man was neither wise
nor of sound mind. Also, if there is no providence, how is it that the
bodies of animals are arranged with such foresight, that the various
members, being disposed in a wonderful manner, discharge their own offices
individually? The system of providence, he says, contrived nothing in the
production of animals; for neither were the eyes made for seeing, nor the
ears for hearing, nor the tongue for speaking, nor the feet for walking;
inasmuch as these were produced before it was possible to speak, to hear,
to see, and to walk. Therefore these were not produced for use; but use was
produced from them. If there is no providence, why do rains fall, fruits
spring up, and trees put forth leaves? These things, he says, are not
always done for the sake of living creatures, inasmuch as they are of no
benefit to providence; but all things must be produced of their own accord.
From what source, therefore, do they arise,(1) or how are all things which
are carried on brought about? There is no need he says, of supposing a
providence; for there are seeds floating through the empty void, and from
these, collected together without order, all things are produced and take
their form. Why, then, do we not perceive or distinguish them? Because, he
says, they have neither any colour, nor warmth, nor smell; they are also
without flavour and moisture; and they are so minute, that they cannot be
cut and divided.

   Thus, because he had taken up a false principle at the commencement,
the necessity of the subjects which followed led him to absurdities. For
where or from whence are these atoms? Why did no one dream of them besides
Leucippus only? from whom Democritus,(2) having received instructions, left
to Epicurus the inheritance of his folly. And if these are minute bodies,
and indeed solid, as they say, they certainly are able to fall under the
notice of the eyes. If the nature of all things is the same, how is it that
they compose various objects? They meet together, he says, in varied order
and position as the letters which, though few in number, by variety of
arrangement make up innumerable words. But it is urged the letters have a
variety of forms. And so, he says, have these first principles; for they
are rough, they are furnished with hooks, they are smooth. Therefore they
can be cut and divided, if there is in them any part which projects. Bat if
they are smooth and without hooks, they cannot cohere. They ought therefore
to he hooked, that they may be linked together one with another. But since
they are said to be so minute that they cannot be cut asunder by the edge
of any weapon, how is it that they have hooks or angles?  For it must be
possible for these to be torn asunder, since they project. In the next
place, by what mutual compact, by what discernment, do they meet together,
so that anything may be constructed out of them? If they are without
intelligence, they cannot come together in such order and arrangement; for
nothing but reason can bring to accomplishment anything in accordance with
reason. With how many arguments can this trifling be refuted! But I must
proceed with my subject. This is he

"Who surpassed in intellect the race of man, and quenched the light of all,
as the ethereal sun arisen quenches the stars."(3)

Which verses I am never able to read without laughter. For this was not
said respecting Socrates or Plato, who are esteemed as kings of
philosophers, but concerning a man who, though of sound mind and vigorous
health, raved more senselessly than any one diseased. And thus the most
vain poet, I do not say adorned, but overwhelmed and crushed, the mouse
with the praises of the lion. But the same man also releases us from the
fear of death, respecting which these are his own exact words:--

"When we are in existence, death does not exist; when death exists, we have
no existence: therefore death is nothing to us."

How cleverly he has deceived us! As though it were death now completed
which is an object of fear, by which sensation has been already taken away,
and not the very act of dying, by which sensation is being taken from us.
For there is a time in which we ourselves even yet(4) exist, and death does
not yet exist; and that very time appears to be miserable, because death is
beginning to exist, and we are ceasing to exist.

   Nor is it said without reason that death is not miserable. The approach
of death is miserable; that is, to waste away by disease, to endure the
thrust, to receive the weapon in the body, to be burnt with fire, to be
torn by the teeth of beasts. These are the things which are feared, not
because they bring death, but because they bring great pain. But rather
make out that pain is not an evil. He says it is the greatest of all evils.
How therefore can I fail to fear, if that which precedes or brings about
death is an evil? Why should I say that the argument is false, inasmuch as
souls do not perish? But, he says, souls do perish; for that which is born
with the body must perish with the body. I have already stated that I
prefer to put off the discussion of this subject, and to reserve it for the
last part of my work, that I may refute this persuasion of Epicurus,
whether it was that of Democritus or Dicaearchus, both by arguments and
divine testimonies. But perhaps he promised himself impunity in the
indulgence of his vices; for he was an advocate of most disgraceful
pleasure, and said that man was born for its enjoyment.(1) Who, when he
hears this affirmed, would abstain from the practice of vice and
wickedness? For; if the soul is doomed to perish, let us eagerly pursue
riches, that we may be able to enjoy all kinds of indulgence; and if these
are wanting to us, let us take them away from those who have them by
stealth, by stratagem, or by force, especially if there is no God who
regards the actions of men: as long as the hope of impunity shall favour
us, let us plunder and put to death.(2) For it is the part of the wise man
to do evil, if it is advantageous to him, and safe; since, if there is a
God in heaven, He is not angry with any one. It is also equally the part of
the foolish man to do good; because, as he is not excited with anger, so he
is not influenced by favour. Therefore let us live in the indulgence of
pleasures in every possible way; for in a short time we shall not exist at
all. Therefore let us suffer no day, in short, no moment of time, to pass
away from us without pleasure; lest, since we ourselves are doomed to
perish, the life which we have already spent should itself also perish.

   Although he does not say this in word, yet he teaches it in fact. For
when he maintains that the wise man does everything for his own sake, he
refers all things which he does to his own advantage. And thus he who hears
these disgraceful things, will neither think that any good tiring ought to
be done, since the conferring of benefits has reference to the advantage of
another; nor that he ought to abstain from guilt, because the doing of evil
is attended with gain. If any chieftain of pirates or leader of robbers
were exhorting his men to acts of violence, what other language could he
employ than to say the same things which Epicurus says: that the gods take
no notice; that they are not affected with anger  nor kind feeling; that
the punishment of a future  state is not to be dreaded, because souls die
after death, and that there is no future state of punishment at all; that
pleasure is the greatest good; that there is no society among men; that
every one consults for his own interest; that there is no one who loves
another, unless it be for his own sake; that death is not to be feared by a
brave man, nor any pain; for that he, even if he should be tortured or
burnt, should say that he does not regard it. There is evidently sufficient
cause why any one should regard this as the expression of a wise man, since
it can most fittingly be applied to robbers!

CHAP. XVIII.--THE PYTHAGOREANS AND STOICS, WHILE THEY HOLD THE IMMORTALITY
OF THE SOUL, FOOLISHLY PERSUADE A VOLUNTARY DEATH.

   Others, again, discuss things contrary to these, namely, that the soul
survives after death; and these are chiefly the Pythagoreans and Stoics.
And although they are to be treated with indulgence because they perceive
the truth, yet I cannot but blame them, because they fell upon the truth
not by their opinion, but by accident. And thus they erred in some degree
even in that very matter which they rightly perceived. For, since they
feared the argument by which it is inferred that the soul must necessarily
die with the body, because it is born with the body, they asserted that the
soul is not born with the body, but rather introduced into it, and that it
migrates from one body to another. They did not consider that it was
possible for the soul to survive the body, unless it should appear to have
existed previously to the body. There is therefore an equal and almost
similar error on each side. But the one side are deceived with respect to
the past, the other with respect to the future. For no one saw that which
is most true, that the soul is both created and does not die, because they
were ignorant why that came to pass, or what was the nature of man. Many
therefore of them, because they suspected that the soul is immortal, laid
violent hands upon themselves, as though they were about to depart to
heaven. Thus it was with Cleanthes(3) and Chrysippus,(4) with Zeno,(5) and
Empedocles,(6) who in the dead of night cast himself into a cavity of the
burning AEtna, that when he had suddenly disappeared it might be believed
that he had departed to the gods; and thus also of the Romans Cato died,
who through  the whole of his life was an imitator of Socratic ostentation.
For Democritus, was of another persuasion. But, however,

"By his own spontaneous act he offered up his head to death;"(2)

and nothing can be more wicked than this. For if a homicide is guilty
because he is a destroyer of man, he who puts himself to death is under the
same guilt, because he puts to death a man. Yea, that crime may be
considered to be greater, the punishment of which belongs to God alone. For
as we did not come into this life of our own accord; so, on the other hand,
we can only withdraw from this habitation of the body which has been
appointed for us to keep, by the command of Him who placed us in this body
that we may inhabit it, until He orders us to depart from it; and if any
violence is offered to us, we must endure it with equanimity, since the
death of an innocent person cannot be unavenged, and since we have a great
Judge who alone always has the power of taking vengeance in His hands.

   All these philosophers, therefore, were homicides; and Cato himself,
the chief of Roman wisdom, who, before he put himself to death, is said to
have read through the treatise of Plato which he wrote on the immortality
of the soul, and was led by the authority of the philosopher to the
commission of this great crime; yet he, however, appears to have had some
cause for death in his hatred of slavery. Why should I speak of the
Ambraciot,(3) who, having read the same treatise, threw himself into the
sea, for no other cause than that he believed Plato?--a doctrine altogether
detestable and to be avoided, if it drives men from life. But if Plato had
known and taught by whom, and how, and to whom and on account of what
actions, and at what time, immortality is given, he would neither have
driven Cleombrotus nor Cato to a voluntary death, but he would have trained
them to live with justice. For it appears to me that Cato sought a cause
for death, not so much that he might escape from Caesar, as that he might
obey the decrees of the Stoics, whom he followed, and might make his name
distinguished by some great action; and I do not see what evil could have
happened to him if he had lived. For Caius Caesar, such was his clemency,
had no other object, even in the very heat of civil war, than to appear to
deserve well of the state, by preserving two excellent citizens, Cicero and
Cato. But let us return to those who praise death as a benefit. You
complain of life as though you had lived, or had ever settled with yourself
why you were born at all. May not therefore the true and common Father of
all justly find fault with that saying of Terence:(4)--

"First, learn in what life consists; then, if you shall be dissatisfied
with life, have recourse to death."

You are indignant that you are exposed to evils; as though you deserved
anything good, who are ignorant of your Father. Lord, and King; who,
although you behold with your eyes the bright light, are nevertheless blind
in mind, and lie in the depths of the darkness of ignorance. And this
ignorance has caused that some have not been ashamed to say, that we are
born for this cause, that we may suffer the punishment of our crimes; but I
do not see what can be more senseless than this. For where or what crimes
could we have committed when we did not even exist? Unless we shall happen
to believe that foolish old man,(5) who falsely said that he had  lived
before, and that in his former life he had  been Euphorbus. He, I believe,
because he  was born of an ignoble race, chose for himself a family from
the poems of Homer. O wonderful and remarkable memory of Pythagoras! O
miserable forgetfulness on the part of us all, since we know not who we
were in our former life! But perhaps it was caused by some error, or
favour, that he alone did not touch the abyss of Lethe, or taste the water
of oblivion; doubtless the trifling old man (as is wont to be the case with
old women who are free from occupation) invented fables as it were for
credulous infants. But if he had thought well of those to whom he spoke
these things; if he had considered them to be men, he would never have
claimed to himself the liberty of uttering such perverse falsehoods. But
the folly of this most trifling man is deserving of ridicule. What shall we
do in the case of Cicero, who, having said in the beginning of his
Consolation that men were born for the sake of atoning for their crimes,
afterwards repeated the assertion, as though rebuking him who does not
imagine that life is a punishment? He was right, therefore, in saying
beforehand that he was held by error and wretched ignorance of the truth.

CHAP. XIX.--CICERO AND OTHERS OF THE WISEST MEN  TEACH THE IMMORTALITY OF
THE SOUL, BUT IN AN UNBELIEVING MANNER; AND THAT A GOOD OR AN EVIL DEATH
MUST BE WEIGHED FROM THE PREVIOUS LIFE.

   But those who assert the advantage of death, because they know nothing
of the truth, thus reason: If there is nothing after death, death is not an
evil; for it takes away the perception of evil. But if the soul survives,
death is even an advantage; because immortality follows. And this sentiment
is thus set forth by Cicero concerning the Laws:(1) "We may congratulate
ourselves, since death is about to bring either a better state than that
which exists in life, or at any rate not a worse. For if the soul is in a
state of vigour without the body, it is a divine life; and if it is without
perception, assuredly there is no evil." Cleverly argued, as it appeared to
himself, as though there could be no other state. But each conclusion is
false. For the sacred writings(2) teach that the soul is not annihilated;
but that it is either rewarded according to its righteousness, or eternally
punished according to its crimes. For neither is it right, that he who has
lived a life of wickedness in prosperity should escape the punishment which
he deserves; nor that he who has been wretched on account of his
righteousness, should be deprived of his reward. And this is so true, that
Tully also, in his Consolation, declared that the righteous and the wicked
do not inhabit the same abodes. For those same wise men, he says, did not
judge that the same course was open for all into the heaven; for they
taught that those who were contaminated by vices and crimes were thrust
down into darkness, and lay in the mire; but that, on the other hand, souls
that were chaste, pure, upright, and uncontaminated, being also refined by
the study and practice of virtue, by a light and easy course take their
flight to the gods, that is, to a nature resembling their own. But this
sentiment is posed to the former argument. For that is based on the
assumption that every man at his birth is presented with immortality. What
distinction, therefore, will there be between virtue and guilt, if it makes
no difference whether a man be Aristides or Phalaris, whether he be Cato or
Catiline? But a man does not perceive this opposition between sentiments
and actions, unless he is in possession of the truth. If any one,
therefore, should ask me whether death is a good or an evil, I shall reply
that its character depends upon the course of the life. For as life itself
is a good if it is passed virtuously, but an evil if it is spent viciously,
so also death is to be weighed in accordance with the past actions of life.
And so it comes to pass, that if life has been passed in the service of
God, death is not an evil, for it is a translation to immortality. But if
not so, death must necessarily be an evil, since it transfers men, as I
have said, to everlasting punishment.(3)

   What, then, shall we say, but that they are in error who either desire
death as a good, or flee from life as an evil? unless they are most unjust,
who do not weigh the fewer evils against the greater number of blessings.
For when they pass all their lives in a variety of the choicest
gratifications, if any bitterness has chanced to succeed to these, they
desire to die; and they so regard it as to appear never to have fared well,
if at any time they happen to fare ill. Therefore they condemn the whole of
life, and consider it as nothing else than filled with evils. Hence arose
that foolish sentiment, that this state which we imagine to be life is
death, and that that which we fear as death is life; and so that the first
good is not to be born, that the second is an early death. And that this
sentiment may be of greater weight, it is attributed to Silenus.(4) Cicero
in his Consolation says: "Not to be born is by far the best thing, and not
to fall upon these rocks of life. But the next thing is, if you have been
born, to die as soon as possible, and to flee from the violence of fortune
as from a conflagration." That he believed this most foolish expression
appears from this, that he added something of his own for its
embellishment. I ask, therefore, for whom he thinks it best not to be born,
when there is no  one at all who has any perception; for it is the
perception which causes anything to be good or bad. In the next place, why
did he regard the whole of life as nothing else than rocks, and a
conflagration; as though it were either in our power not to be born, or
life were given to us by fortune, and not by God, or as though the course
of life appeared to bear any resemblance to a conflagration? The saying of
Plato is not dissimilar, that he gave thanks to nature, first that he was
born a human being rather than a dumb animal; in the next place, that he
was a man rather than a woman; that he was a Greek rather than a
barbarian;(5) lastly, that he was an Athenian, and that he was born in the
time of Socrates. It is impossible to say what great blindness and errors
are produced by ignorance of the truth would altogether contend that
nothing in the affairs of men was ever spoken more foolishly. As though, if
he had been born a barbarian, or a woman, or, in fine, an ass, he would be
the same Plato, and not that very being which had been produced. But he
evidently believed Pythagoras, who, in order that he might prevent men from
feeding on animals, said that souls passed from the bodies of men to the
bodies of other animals; which is both foolish and impossible. It is
foolish, because it was unnecessary to introduce souls that have long
existed into new bod ies, when the same Artificer who at one time had made
the first, was always able to make fresh ones; it is impossible, because
the soul endued with right reason can no more change the nature of its
condition, than fire can rush downwards, or, like a river, pour its flame
obliquely.(1) The wise man therefore imagined, that it might come to pass
that the soul which was then in Plato might be shut up in some other
animal, and might be endued with the sensibility of a man, so as to
understand and grieve that it was burthened with an incongruous body. How
much more rationally would he have acted, if he had said that he gave
thanks because he was born with a good capacity, and capable of receiving
instruction, and that he was possessed of those resources which enabled him
to receive a liberal education! For what benefit was it that he was born at
Athens? Have not many men of distinguished talent and learning lived in
other cities, who were better individually than all the Athenians? How many
thousands must we believe that there were, who, though born at Athens, and
in the times of Socrates, were nevertheless unlearned and foolish? For it
is not the walls or the place in which any one was born that can invest a
man with wisdom. Of what avail was it to congratulate himself that he was
born in the times of Socrates? Was Socrates able to supply talent to
learners? It did not occur to Plato that Alcibiades also, and Critias, were
constant hearers of the same Socrates, the one of whom was the most active
enemy of his country, the other the most cruel of all tyrants.

CHAP. XX.--SOCRATES HAD MORE KNOWLEDGE IN PHILOSOPHY THAN OTHER MEN,
ALTHOUGH IN MANY THINGS HE ACTED FOOLISHLY.

   Let us now see what there was so great in Socrates himself, that a wise
man deservedly gave thanks that he was born in his times. I do not deny
that he was a little more sagacious than the others who thought that the
nature of things could be comprehended by the mind. And in  this I judge
that they were not only senseless, but also impious; because they wished to
send their inquisitive eyes into the secrets of that heavenly providence.
We know that there are at Rome, and in many cities, certain sacred things
which it is considered impious for men to look upon. Therefore they who are
not permitted to pollute those objects abstain from looking upon them; and
if by error or some accident a man has happened to see them, his guilt is
expiated first by his punishment, and afterwards by a repetition of
sacrifice. What can you do in the case of those who wish to pry into
unpermitted things? Truly they are much more wicked who seek to profane the
secrets of the world and this heavenly temple with impious disputations,
than those who entered the temple of Vesta, or the Good Goddess, or Ceres.
And these shrines, though it is not lawful for men to approach them, were
yet constructed by men. But these men not only escape the charge of
impiety, but, that which is much more unbecoming, they gain the fame of
eloquence and the glory of talent. What if they were able to investigate
anything? For they are as foolish in asserting as they are wicked in
searching out; since they are neither able to find out anything, nor, even
if they had found out anything, to defend it. For if even by chance they
have seen the truth--a thing which often happens--they so act that it is
refuted by others as false. For no one descends from heaven to pass
sentence on the opinions of individuals; wherefore no one can doubt that
those who seek after these things are foolish, senseless, and insane.

   Socrates therefore had something of human wisdom,(2) who, when he
understood that these things could not possibly be ascertained, removed
himself from questions of this kind; but I fear that he so acted in this
alone. For many of his actions are not only undeserving of praise, but also
most deserving of censure, in which things he most resembled those of his
own class. Out of these I will select one which may be judged of by all.
Socrates used this well-known proverb: "That which is above us is nothing
to us." Let us therefore fall down upon the earth, and use as feet those
hands which have been given us for the production of excellent works. The
heaven is nothing to us, to the contemplation of which we have been
raised;(3) in fine, the light itself can have no reference to us;
undoubtedly the cause of our sustenance is from heaven. But if he perceived
this, that we ought not to discuss the nature of heavenly things, he was
unable even to comprehend the nature of those things which he had beneath
his feet. What then? did he err in his words? It is not probable; but he
undoubtedly meant that which he said, that we are not to devote ourselves
to religion; but if he were openly to say this, no one would suffer it.

   For who cannot perceive that this world, completed with such wonderful
method, is governed by some providence, since there is nothing which can
exist without some one to direct it? Thus, a house deserted by its
inhabitant fails to decay; a ship without a pilot goes to the bottom; and a
body abandoned by the soul wastes away. Much less can we suppose that so
great a fabric could either have been constructed without an Artificer, or
have existed so long without a Ruler. But if he wished to overthrow those
public superstitions, I do not disapprove of this; yea, I shall rather
praise it, if he shall have found anything better to take their place. But
the same man swore(1) by a dog and a goose. Oh buffoon (as Zeno the
Epicurean(2) says), senseless, abandoned, desperate man, if he wished to
scoff at religion; madman, if he did this seriously, so as to esteem a most
base animal as God! For who can dare to find fault with the superstitions
oft the Egyptians, when Socrates confirmed them at Athens by his authority?
But was it not a mark of consummate vanity, that before his death he asked
his friends to sacrifice for him a cock which he had vowed to AEsculapius?
He evidently feared lest he should be put upon his trial before
Rhadamanthus, the judge, by AEsculapius on account of the vow. I should
consider him most mad if he had died under the influence of disease. But
since he did this in his sound mind, he who thinks that he was wise is
himself of unsound mind. Behold one in whose times the wise man
congratulates himself as having been born!

CHAP. XXI.--OF THE SYSTEM OF PLATO, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THE OVERTHROW OF
STATES.

   Let us, however, see what it was that he learned from Socrates, who,
having entirely rejected natural philosophy, betook himself to inquiries
about virtue and duty. And thus I do not doubt that he instructed his
hearers in the precepts of justice. Therefore, under the teaching of
Socrates, it did not escape the notice of Plato, that the force of justice
consists in equality, since all are born in an equal condition. Therefore
(he says) they must have nothing private or their own; but that they may be
equal, as the method of justice requires, they must possess all things in
common. This is capable of being endured, as long as it appears to be
spoken of money. But how impossible and how unjust this is, I could show by
many things. Let us, however, admit its possibility. For grant that nil arc
wise, and despise money. To what, then, did that community lead him?
Marriages also, be says, ought to be in common; so that many men may flock
together like dogs to the same woman, and he who shall be superior in
strength may succeed in obtaining her; or if they are patient as
philosophers, they may await their turns, as in a brothel. Oh the wonderful
equality of Plato! Where, then, is the  virtue of chastity? where conjugal
fidelity? And if you take away these, all justice is taken away. But he
also says that states would be prosperous, if either philosophers were
their kings, or their kings were philosophers. But if you were to give the
sovereignty to this man of such justice and equity, who had deprived some
of their own property, and given to some the property of others, he would
prostitute the modesty of women; a thing which was never done, I do not say
by a king, but not even by a tyrant.

   But what motive did he advance for this most degrading advice? The
state will be in harmony, and bound together with the bonds of mutual love,
if all shall be the husbands, and fathers, and wives, and children of all.
What a confusion of the human race is this? How is it possible for
affection to be preserved where there is nothing certain to be loved? What
man will love a woman, or what woman a man, unless they shall always have
lived together,--unless devotedness of mind, and faith mutually preserved,
shall have made their love indivisible? But this virtue has no place in
that promiscuous pleasure. Moreover, if all are the children of all, who
will be able to love children as his own, when he is either ignorant or in
doubt whether they are his own? Who will bestow honour upon any one as a
father, when he does not know from whom he was born? From which it comes to
pass, that he not only esteems a stranger as a father, but also a father as
a stranger. Why should I say that it is possible for a wife to be common,
but impossible for a son, who cannot be conceived except from one? The
community, therefore, is lost to him alone, nature herself crying out
against it. It remains that it is only for the sake of concord that he
would have a community of wives. But there is no more vehement cause of
discords, than the desire of one woman by many men. And in this Plato might
have been admonished, if not by reason, yet certainly by example, both of
the dumb animals, which fight most vehemently on this account, and of men,
who have always carried on most severe wars with one another on account of
this matter.

CHAP. XXII.--OF THE PRECEPTS OF PLATO, AND CENSURES OF THE SAME.

   It remains that the community of which we have spoken admits of nothing
else but adulteries and lusts, for the utter extinction of which virtue is
especially necessary. Therefore he did not find the concord which he
sought, because he did not see whence it arises. For justice has no weight
in outward circumstances, not even in the body,(3) but it is altogether
employed on the mind of man. He, therefore, who wishes to place men on an
equality, ought not to take away marriage and wealth, but arrogance, pride,
and haughtiness, that those who are powerful and lifted up on high may know
that they are on a level even with the most needy. For insolence and
injustice being taken from the rich, it will make no difference whether
some are rich and others poor, since they will be equal in spirit, and
nothing but reverence towards God can produce this result. He thought,
therefore, that he had found justice, whereas he had altogether removed it,
because it ought not to be a community of perishable things, but of minds.
For if justice is the mother(1) of all virtues, when they are severally
taken away, it is also itself overthrown. But Plato took away above all
things frugality, which has no existence when there is no property of one's
own which can be possessed; he took away abstinence, since there will be
nothing belonging to another from which one can abstain; he took away
temperance and chastity, which are the greatest virtues in each sex; he
took away self-respect, shame, and modesty, if those things which are
accustomed to be judged base and disgraceful begin to be accounted
honourable and lawful. Thus, while he wishes to confer virtue upon all, he
takes it away from all. For the ownership of property contains the material
both of vices and of virtues, but a community of goods contains nothing
else than the licentiousness of vices. For men who have many mistresses can
be called nothing else than luxurious and prodigal. And likewise women who
are in the possession of many men, must of necessity be not adulteresses,
because they have no fixed marriage, but prostitutes and harlots. Therefore
he reduced human life, I do not say to the likeness of dumb animals, but of
the herds and brutes. For almost all the birds contract marriages, and are
united in pairs, and defend their nests, as though their marriage-beds,
with harmonious mind, and cherish their own young, because they are well
known to them; and if you put others in their way, they repel them. But
this wise man, contrary to the custom of men, and contrary to nature, chose
more foolish objects of imitation; and since he saw that the duties of
males and females were not separated in the case of other animals, he
thought that women also ought to engage in warfare, and take a share in the
public counsels, and undertake magistracies, and assume commands. And
therefore he assigned to them horses and arms: it follows that he should
have assigned to men wool and the loom, and the carrying of infants. Nor
did he see the impossibility of what he said, from the fact that no nation
has existed in the world so foolish or so vain as to live in this
manner.(2)

CHAP. XXIII.--OF THE ERRORS OF CERTAIN PHILOSOPHERS, AND OF THE SUN AND
MOON.

   Since, therefore, the leading men among the philosophers are themselves
discovered to be of such emptiness, what shall we think of those lesser s
ones, who are accustomed never to appear to themselves so wise, as when
they boast of their contempt of money? Brave spirit! But I wait to see
their conduct, and what are the results of that contempt. They avoid as an
evil, and abandon the property handed down to them from their parents. And
lest they should suffer shipwreck in a storm, they plunge headlong of their
own accord in a cairn, being resolute not by virtue, but by perverse fear;
as those who, through fear of being slain by the enemy, slay themselves,
that by death they may avoid death. So these men, without honour and
without influence, throw away the means by which they might have acquired
the glory of liberality. Democritus is praised because he abandoned his
fields, and suffered them to become public pastures. I should approve of
it, if he had given them. But nothing is done wisely which is useless and
evil if it is done by all. But this negligence is tolerable. What shall I
say of him who changed his possessions into money, which he threw into the
sea? I doubt whether he was in his senses, or deranged. Away, he says, ye
evil desires, into the deep. I will cast you away, lest I myself should be
cast away by you. If you have so great a contempt for money, employ it in
acts of kindness and humanity, bestow it upon the poor; this, which you are
about to throw away, may be a succour to many, so that they may not die
through famine, or thirst, or nakedness. Imitate at least the madness and
fury of Tuditanus;(4) scatter abroad your property to be seized by the
people. You have it in your power both to escape the possession of money,
and yet to lay it out to advantage; for whatever has been profitable to
many is securely laid out.

   But who approves of the equality of faults as laid down by Zeno? But
let us omit that which is always received with derision by all. This is
sufficient to prove the error of this madman, that he places pity among
vices and diseases. He deprives us of an affection, which involves almost
the whole course of human life. For since the nature of man is more feeble
than that of the other animals, which divine providence has armed with
natural means of protection,(1) either to endure the severity of the
seasons or to ward off attacks from their bodies, because none of these
things has been given to man, he has received in the place of all these
things the affection of pity, which is truly called humanity, by which we
might mutually protect each other. For if a man were rendered savage by the
sight of another man, which we see happen in the case of those animals
which are of a solitary(2) nature, there would be no society among men, no
care or system in the building of cities; and thus life would not even be
safe, since the weakness of men would both be exposed to the attacks of the
other animals, and they would rage among themselves after the manner of
wild beasts. Nor is his madness less in other things.

   For what can be said respecting him who asserted that snow was black?
How naturally it followed, that he should also assert that pitch was white!
This is he who said that he was born for this purpose, that he might behold
the heaven and the sun, who beheld nothing on the earth when the sun was
shining. Xenophanes most foolishly believed mathematicians who said that
the orb of the moon was eighteen times larger than the earth; and, as was
consistent with this folly, he said that within the concave surface of the
moon there was another earth, and that there another race of men live in a
similar manner to that in which we live on this earth. Therefore these
lunatics have another moon, to hold forth to them a light by night, as this
does to us. And perhaps this globe of ours may be a moon to another earth
below this.(3) Seneca says that there was one among the Stoics who used to
deliberate whether he should assign to the sun also its own inhabitants; he
acted foolishly in doubting. For what injury would he have inflicted if he
had assigned them? But I believe the heat deterred him, so as not to
imperil so great a multitude; lest, if they should perish through excessive
heat, so great a calamity should be said to have happened by his fault.

CHAP. XXIV.--OF THE ANTIPODES, THE HEAVEN, AND THE STARS.

   How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes(4) opposite
to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one
so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher
than their heads? or that the things which with us are in a recumbent
position, with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and trees
grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the
earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens s are mentioned among
the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and
seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error must also be set
forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same manner. For when they
have assumed anything false in the commencement of their investigations,
led by the resemblance of the truth, they necessarily fall into those
things which are its consequences. Thus they fall into many ridiculous
things; because those things which are in agreement with false things, must
themselves be false. But since they placed confidence in the first, they do
not consider the character of those things which follow, but defend them in
every way; whereas they ought to judge from those which follow, whether the
first are true or false.

   What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the
antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the west;
they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same quarter, and
rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what contrivance
regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west to the east,
but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in every direction,
which appearance it must present on account of its immense breadth, they
thought that the world is round like a ball, and they fancied that the
heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of the heavenly bodies; and
thus that the stars and sun, when they have set, by the very rapidity of
the motion of the world(6) are borne back to the east. Therefore they both
constructed brazen orbs, as though after the figure of the world, and
engraved upon them certain monstrous images, which they said were
constellations. It followed, therefore, from this rotundity of the heaven,
that the earth was enclosed in the midst of its curved surface. But if this
were so, the earth also itself must be like a globe; for that could not
possibly be anything but round, which was held enclosed by that which was
round. But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it
should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is.
that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas.
And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would
be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the
rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those
suspended antipodes.

   But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why
all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply  that
such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle,
and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes
in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire,
are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss
what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently
persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I
sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a
jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to
exercise or display their talents on false subjects. But I should be able
to prove by many arguments that it is impossible for the heaven to be lower
than the earth, were is not that this book must now be concluded, and that
some things still remain,  which are more necessary for the present work.
And since it is not the work of a single book to  run over the errors of
each individually, let it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from
which the nature of the others may be understood.

CHAP. XXV.--OF LEARNING PHILOSOPHY, AND WHAT GREAT QUALIFICATIONS ARE
NECESSARY FOR ITS PURSUIT.

   We must now speak a few things concerning philosophy in general, that
having strengthened our cause we may conclude. That greatest imitator of
Plato among our writers thought that philosophy was not for the multitude,
because none but learned men could attain to it. "Philosophy," says
Cicero,(1) "is contented with a few judges, of its own accord designedly
avoiding the multitude." It is not therefore wisdom, if it avoids the
concourse of men; since, if wisdom is given to man, it is given to all
without any distinction, so that there is no one at all who cannot acquire
it. But they so embrace virtue, which is given to the human race, that they
alone of all appear to wish to enjoy that which is a public good; being as
envious as if they should wish to bind or tear out the eyes of others that
they may not see the sun. For what else is it to deny wisdom to men, than
to take away from their minds the true and divine light? But if the nature
of man is capable of wisdom, it was befitting that both workmen, and
country people, and women, and all, in short, who bear the human form,
should be taught to he wise; and that the people should be brought together
from every language, and condition, and sex, and  age. Therefore it is a
very strong argument that  philosophy neither tends to wisdom, nor is of
itself wisdom, that its mystery is only made known by the beard and cloak
of the philosophers.(2) The Stoics, moreover, perceived this, who said that
philosophy was to be studied both by slaves and women; Epicurus also, who
invites those who are altogether unacquainted with letters to philosophy;
and Plato also, who wished to compose a state of wise men.

   They attempted, indeed, to do that which truth required; but they were
unable to proceed beyond words. First, because instruction in many arts is
necessary for an application to philosophy. Common learning must be
acquired on account of practice in reading, because in so great a variety
of subjects it is impossible that all things should be learned by hearing,
or retained in the memory. No little attention also must be given to the
grammarians, in order that you may know the right method of speaking. That
must occupy many years. Nor must there be ignorance of rhetoric, that you
may be able to utter and express the things which you have learned.
Geometry also, and music, and astronomy, are necessary, because these arts
have some connection with philosophy; and the whole of these subjects
cannot be learned by women, who must learn within the years of their
maturity the duties which are hereafter about to be of service to them for
domestic uses; nor by servants, who must live in service during those years
especially in which they are able to learn; nor by the poor, or labourers,
or rustics, who have to gain their daily support by labour. And on this
account Tully says that philosophy is averse from the multitude. But yet
Epicurus will receive the ignorant.(3) How, then, will they understand
those things which are said respecting the first principles of things, the
perplexities and intricacies of which are scarcely attained to by men of
cultivated minds?

   Therefore, in subjects which are involved in obscurity, and confused by
a variety of intellects, and set off by the studied language of eloquent
men, what place is there for the unskilful and ignorant? Lastly, they never
taught any women to study philosophy, except Themiste(4) only, within the
whole memory of man; nor slaves, except Phaedo(5) only, who is said, when
living in oppressive slavery, to have been ransomed and taught by Cebes.
They also enumerate Plato and Diogenes: these, however, were not slaves,
though they had fallen into servitude, for they had been taken captive. A
certain Aniceris is said to have ransomed Plato for eight sesterces. And on
this account Seneca severely rebuked the ransomer himself, because he set
so small value upon Plato. He was a madman, as it seems to me, who was
angry with a man because he did not throw away much money; doubtless he
ought to have weighed gold as though to ransom the corpse of Hector, or to
have insisted upon the payment of more money than the seller demanded.
Moreover, they taught none of the barbarians, with the single exception of
Anacharsis the Scythian, who never would have dreamed of philosophy had he
not previously learned both language and literature.

CHAP. XXVI.--IT IS DIVINE INSTRUCTION ONLY WHICH BESTOWS WISDOM; AND OF
WHAT EFFICACY THE LAW OF GOD IS.

   That, therefore, which they perceived to be justly required by the
demands of nature, but which they were themselves unable to perform, and
saw that the philosophers could not effect, is accomplished only by divine
instruction; for that only is wisdom. Doubtless they were able to persuade
any one who do not even persuade themselves of anything; or they will crush
the desires, moderate the anger, and restrain the lusts of any one, when
they themselves both yield to vices, and acknowledge that they are
overpowered by nature. But what influence is exerted on the souls of men by
the precepts of God, because of their simplicity and truth, is shown by
daily proofs. Give me a man who is passionate, scurrilous, and
unrestrained; with a very few words of God,

   "I will render him as gentle as a sheep."(1)

Give me one who is grasping, covetous, and tenacious; I will presently
restore him to you liberal, and freely bestowing his money with full hands.
Give me a man who is afraid of pain and death; he shall presently despise
crosses, and fires, and the bull of Phalaris.(2) Give me one who is
lustful, an adulterer a glutton; you shall presently see him sober, chaste,
and temperate. Give me one who is cruel and bloodthirsty: that fury shall
presently be changed into true clemency. Give me a man who is unjust,
foolish, an evil-doer; forthwith he shall be just, and wise, and innocent
for by one laver(3) all his wickedness shall be taken away. So great is the
power of divine wisdom, that, when infused into the breast of man, by one
impulse it once for all expels folly,  which is the mother of faults, for
the effecting of which there is no need of payment, or books, or nightly
studies. These results are accomplished gratuitously, easily, and quickly,
if only the ears are open and the breast thirsts for wisdom. Let no one
fear: we do not sell water, nor offer the sun for a reward. The fountain of
God, most abundant and most full, is open to all; and this heavenly light
rises for all,(4) as many as have eyes. Did any of the philosophers effect
these things, or is he able to effect them if he wishes? For though they
spend their lives in the study of philosophy, they are neither able to
improve any other person nor themselves (if nature has presented any
obstacle). Therefore their wisdom, doing its utmost, does not eradicate,
but hide vices. But a few precepts of God so entirely change the whole man,
and having put off the old man, render him new, that you would not
recognise him as the same.

CHAP. XXVII.--HOW LITTLE THE PRECEPTS OF PHILOSOPHERS CONTRIBUTE TO TRUE
WISDOM. WHICH YOU WILL FIND IN RELIGION ONLY.

   What, then? Do they enjoin nothing similar? Yes, indeed, many things;
and they frequently approach the truth. But those precepts have no weight,
because they are human, and are without a greater, that is, that divine
authority. No one therefore believes them, because the hearer imagines
himself to be a man, just as he is, who enjoins them. Moreover, there is no
certainty with them, nothing which proceeds from knowledge. But since all
things are done by conjecture, and many differing and various things are
brought forward, it is the part of a most foolish man to be willing to obey
their precepts. since it is doubted whether they are true or false; and
therefore no one obeys them, because no one wishes to labour for an
uncertainty. The Stoics say that it is virtue which can alone produce a
happy life. Nothing can be said with greater truth. But what if he shall be
tormented, or afflicted with pain? Will it be possible for any one to be
happy in the hands of the executioners? But truly pain inflicted upon the
body is the material of virtue; therefore he is not wretched even in
tortures. Epicurus speaks much more strongly. The wise man, he says, is
always happy; and even when shut up in the bull of Phalaris he will utter
this speech: "It is pleasant, and I do not care for it." Who would not
laugh at him? Especially, because a man who is devoted to pleasure took
upon himself the character of a man of fortitude, and that to an immoderate
degree; for it is impossible that any one should esteem tortures of the
body as pleasures, since it is sufficient for discharging the office of
virtue that one sustains and endures them. What do you, Stoics, say? What
do you, Epicurus? The wise man is happy even when be is tortured. If it is
on account of the glory of his endurance, he will not enjoy it, for
perchance he will die under the tortures. If it is on account of the
recollection of the deed, either he will not perceive it if souls shall
perish, or, if he shall perceive it, he will gain nothing from it.

   What other advantage is there then in virtue? what happiness of life?
Is it that a man may die with equanimity? You present to me the advantage
of a single hour, or perhaps moment, for the sake of which it may not be
expedient to be worn out by miseries and labours throughout the whole of
life. But how much time does death occupy? on the arrival of which it now
makes no difference whether you shall have undergone it with equanimity or
not. Thus it happens that nothing is sought from virtue but glory. But this
is either superfluous and short-lived, or it will not follow from the
depraved judgments of men. Therefore there is no fruit from virtue where
virtue is subject to death and decay. Therefore they who said these things
saw a certain shadow(1) of virtue: they did not see virtue itself. For they
had their eyes fixed on the earth, nor did they raise their countenances on
high that they might behold her

   "Who showed herself from the quarters of heaven."(2)

This is the reason why no one obeys their precepts; inasmuch as they either
train men to vices, if they defend pleasure; or if they uphold virtue, they
neither threaten sin with any punishment, except that of disgrace only, nor
do they promise any reward to virtue, except that of honour and praise
only, since they say that virtue is to be sought for its own sake, and not
on account of any other object. The wise man therefore is happy under
tortures; but when he suffers torture on account of his faith, on account
of justice, or on account of God, that endurance of pain will render him
most happy. For it is God alone who can honour virtue, the reward of which
is immortality alone. And they who do not seek this, nor possess religion,
with which eternal life is connected, assuredly do not know the power of
virtue, the reward of which they are ignorant; nor look towards heaven, as
they themselves imagine that they do, when they inquire into subjects which
do not admit of investigation, since there is no other cause for looking
towards heaven, unless it be either to undertake religion, or to believe
that one's soul is immortal. For if any one understands that God is to be
worshipped, or has the hope of immortality set before him, his mind(3) is
in heaven; and although he may not behold it with his eyes, yet he does
behold it with the eye of his soul. But they who do not take up religion
are of the earth, for religion is from heaven; and they who think that the
soul perishes together with the body, equally look down towards the earth:
for beyond the body, which is earth, they see nothing further, which is
immortal. It is therefore of no profit that man is so made, that with
upright body he looks towards heaven, unless with mind raised aloft he
discerns God, and his thoughts are altogether engaged upon the hope of
everlasting life.

CHAP. XXVIII.--OF TRUE RELIGION AND OF NATURE. WHETHER FORTUNE IS A
GODDESS, AND OF PHILOSOPHY.

   Wherefore there is nothing else in life on which our plan and condition
can depend but the knowledge of God who created us, and the religious and
pious worship of Him; and since the philosophers have wandered from this,
it is plain that they were not wise. They sought wis-dom, indeed; but
because they did not seek it in a right manner, they sunk down to a greater
distance, and fell into such great errors, that they did not even possess
common wisdom. For they were not only unwilling to maintain religion, but
they even took it away; while, led on by the appearance of false virtue,
they endeavour to free the mind from all fear: and this overturning of
religion gains the name of nature. For they, either being ignorant by whom
the world was made, or wishing to persuade men that nothing was completed
by divine intelligence, said that nature was the mother of all things, as
though they should say that all things were produced of their own accord:
by which word they altogether confess their own ignorance. For nature,
apart from divine providence and power, is absolutely nothing. But if they
call God nature, what perverseness is it, to use the name of nature rather
than of God!(4) But if nature is the plan, or necessity, or condition of
birth, it is not by itself capable of sensation; but there must necessarily
be a divine mind, which by its foresight furnishes the beginning of their
existence to all things. Or if nature is heaven and earth. and everything
which is created. nature is not God, but the work of God.

   By a similar error they believe in the existence of fortune, as a
goddess mocking the affairs of then with various casualties, because they
know not from what source things good and evil happen to them. They think
that they are brought together to do battle with her; nor do they assign
any reason by whom and on what account they are thus matched; but they only
boast that they are every moment carrying on a contest for life and death
with fortune. Now, as many as have consoled any persons on account of the
death and removal of friends, have censured the name of fortune with the
most severe accusations; nor is there any disputation of theirs on the
subject of virtue, in which fortune is not harassed. M. Tullius, in his
Consolation, says that he has always fought against fortune, and that she
was always overpowered by him when he had valiantly beaten back the attacks
of his enemies; that he was not subdued by her even then, when he was
driven from his home and deprived of his country; but then, when he lost
his dearest daughter, he shamefully confesses that he is overcome by
fortune. I yield, he says, and raise my hand.(1) What is more wretched than
this man, who thus lies prostrate? He acts foolishly, he says; but it is
one who professes that he is wise. What, then, does the assumption of the
name imply? What that contempt of things which is laid claim to with
magnificent words? What that dress, so different from others? Or why do you
give precepts of wisdom at all, if no one has yet been found who is wise?
And does any one bear ill-will to us because we deny that philosophers are
wise, when they themselves confess that they neither have knowledge nor
wisdom? For if at any time they have so failed that they are not even able
to feign anything, as their practice is in other cases, then in truth they
are reminded of their ignorance; and, as though in madness, they spring up
and exclaim that they are blind and foolish. Anaxagoras pronounces that all
things are overspread with darkness. Empedocles complains that the paths of
the senses are narrow, as though for his reflections he had need of a
chariot and four horses. Democritus says that the truth lies sunk in a well
so deep that it has no bottom; foolishly, indeed, as he says other things.
For the truth is not, as it were, sunk in a well to which it was permitted
him to descend, or even to fall, but, as it were, placed on the highest top
of a lofty mountain, or in heaven, which is most true. For what reason is
there why he should say that it is sunk below rather than that it is raised
aloft? unless by chance he preferred to place the mind also in the feet, or
in the bottom of the heels, rather than in the breast or in the head.

   So widely removed were they from the truth itself, that even the
posture of their own body did not admonish them, that the truth must be
sought for by them in the highest place.(2) From this despair arose that
confession of Socrates, in which he said that he knew nothing but this one
thing alone, that he knew nothing. From this flowed the system of the
Academy, if that is to be called a system in which ignorance is both learnt
and taught. But not even those who claimed for themselves knowledge were
able consistently to defend that very thing which they thought that they
knew. For since they were not in agreement(3) with one another, through
their ignorance of divine things they were so inconsistent and uncertain,
and often asserting things contrary to one another, that you are unable to
determine and decide what their meaning was. Why therefore should you fight
against those men who perish by their own sword? Why should you labour to
refute those whom their own speech refutes and presses?(4) Aristotle, says
Cicero, accusing the ancient philosophers, declares that they are either
most foolish or most vainglorious, since they thought that philosophy was
perfected by their talents; but that he saw, because a great addition had
been made in a few years, that philosophy would be complete in a short
time. What, then, was that time? In what manner, when, or by whom, was
philosophy completed? For that which he said, that they were most foolish
in supposing that philosophy was made perfect by their talents, is true;
but he did not even himself speak with sufficient discretion, who thought
that it had either been begun by the ancients, or increased by those who
were more recent, or that it would shortly be brought to perfection by
those of later times. For that can never be investigated which is not
sought by its own way.

CHAP. XXIX.--OF FORTUNE AGAIN, AND VIRTUE.

   But let us return to the subject which we laid aside. Fortune,
therefore, by itself, is nothing; nor must we so regard it as though it had
any perception, since fortune is the sudden and unexpected occurrence of
accidents. But philosophers, that they may not sometimes fail to err, wish
to be wise in a foolish matter; and say that she is not a goddess, as is
generally believed, but a god. Sometimes, however, they call this god
nature, sometimes fortune, "because he brings about," says the same Cicero,
"many things unexpected by us, on account of our want of intelligence and
our ignorance of causes." Since, therefore, they are ignorant of the causes
on account of which anything is done, they must also be ignorant of him who
does them. The same writer, in a work of great seriousness, in which he was
giving to his son precepts of life drawn from philosophy, says, "Who can be
ignorant that the power of fortune is great on either side? For both when
we meet with a prosperous breeze from her we gain the issues which we
desire, and when she has breathed contrary to us we are dashed on the
rocks."(1) First of all, he who says that nothing can be known, spoke this
as though he himself and all men had knowledge. Then he who endeavours to
render doubtful even the things which are plain, thought that this was
plain, which ought to have been to him especially doubtful; for to a wise
man it is altogether false. Who, he says, knows not? I indeed know not. Let
him teach me, if he can,  what that power is, what that breeze, and what
the contrary breath. It is disgraceful, therefore, for a man of talent to
say that, which if you were to deny it, he would be unable to prove.
Lastly, he who says that the assent must be withheld because it is the part
of a foolish man rashly to assent to things which are unknown to him, he, I
say, altogether believed the opinions of the vulgar and uninstructed, who
think that it is fortune which gives to men good and evil things. For they
represent her image with the horn of plenty and with a rudder, as though
she both gave wealth and had the government of human affairs. And to this
opinion Virgil(2) assented, who calls fortune omnipotent; and the
historian(3) who says, But assuredly fortune bears sway in everything. What
place, then, remains for the other gods? Why is she not said to reign by
herself, if she has more power than others; or why is she not alone
worshipped, if she has power in all things? Or if she inflicts evils only,
let them bring forward some cause why, if she is a goddess, she envies men,
and desires their destruction, though she is religiously worshipped by
them; why she is more favourable to the wicked and more unfavourable to the
good; why she plots, afflicts, deceives, exterminates; who appointed her as
the perpetual harasser of the race of men; why, in short, she has obtained
so mischievous a power, that she renders all things illustrious or obscure
according to her caprice rather than in accordance with the truth.
Philosophers, I say, ought rather to have inquired into these things, than
rashly to have accused fortune, who is innocent: for although she has some
existence, yet no reason can be brought forward by them why she should be
as hostile to men as she is supposed to be. Therefore all those speeches in
which they rail at the injustice of fortune, and in opposition to fortune
arrogantly boast of their own virtues, are nothing else but the ravings of
thoughtless levity.

   Wherefore let them not envy us, to whom God has revealed the truth:
who, as we know that fortune is nothing, so also know that there is a
wicked and crafty spirit who is unfriendly to the good, and the enemy of
righteousness, who acts in opposition to God; the cause of whose enmity we
have explained in the second book.(4) He therefore lays plots against all;
but those who are ignorant of God he hinders by error, he overwhelms with
folly, he overspreads with  darkness, that no one may be able to attain to
the knowledge of the divine name, in which  alone are contained both wisdom
and everlasting life. Those, on the other hand, who know God, he assails
with wiles and craft, that he may ensnare them with desire and lust, and
when they are corrupted by the blandishments of sin, may impel them to
death; or, if he shall have not succeeded by stratagem, he attempts to cast
them down by force and violence. For on this  account he was not at once
thrust down by God  to punishment at the original transgression, that  by
his malice he may exercise man to virtue: for unless this is in constant
agitation, unless it is strengthened by continual harassing, it cannot be
perfect, inasmuch as virtue is dauntless and unconquered patience in
enduring evils. From which it comes to pass that there is no virtue if an
adversary is wanting. When, therefore, they perceived the force of this
perverse power opposed to virtue, and were ignorant of its name, they
invented for themselves the senseless name of fortune; and how far this is
removed from wisdom, Juvenal declares in these verses:(5)--

"No divine power is absent if there is prudence; but we make you a goddess,
O Fortune, and place you in heaven."

It was folly, therefore, and error, and blindness, and, as Cicero says,(6)
ignorance of facts and causes, which introduced the names of Nature and
Fortune. But as they are ignorant of their adversary, so also they do not
indeed know virtue the knowledge of which is derived from the idea of an
adversary. And if this is joined with wisdom, or, as they say, is itself
also wisdom, they must be ignorant in what subjects it is contained. For no
one can possibly be furnished with true arms if he is ignorant of the enemy
against whom he must be armed; nor can he overcome his adversary, who in
fighting does not attack his real enemy, but a shadow. For he will be
overthrown, who, having his attention fixed on another object, shall not
previously have foreseen or guarded against the blow aimed at his vitals.

CHAP. XXX.--THE CONCLUSION OF THE THINGS BEFORE SPOKEN; AND BY WHAT MEANS
WE MUST PASS FROM THE VANITY OF THE PHILOSOPHERS TO TRUE WISDOM, AND THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE GOD, IN WHICH ALONE ARE VIRTUE AND HAPPINESS.

   I have taught, as far as my humble talents permitted, that the
philosophers held a course widely deviating from the truth. I perceive,
however, how many things I have omitted, because it was not my province to
enter into a disputation against philosophers. But it was necessary for me
to make a digression to this subject, that I might show that so many and
great intellects have expended themselves in vain on false subjects, lest
any one by chance being shut out by corrupt superstitions, should wish to
betake himself to them as though about to find some certainty. Therefore
the only hope, the only safety for man, is placed in this doctrine, which
we defend. All the wisdom of man consists in this alone, the knowledge and
worship of God: this is our tenet, this our opinion. Therefore with all the
power of my voice I testify, I proclaim. I declare: Here, here is that
which all philosophers have sought throughout their whole life; and yet,
they have not been able to investigate, to grasp, and to attain to it,
because they either retained a religion which was corrupt, or took it away
altogether. Let them therefore all depart, who do not instruct human life,
but throw  it into confusion. For what do they teach? or whom do they
instruct, who have not yet instructed themselves? whom are the sick able to
heal, whom can the blind guide? Let us all, therefore, who have any regard
for wisdom, betake ourselves to this subject. Or shall we wait until
Socrates knows something? or Anaxagoras finds light in the darkness? or
until Democritus draws forth truth from the well? or Empedocles extends the
paths of his soul? or until Arcesilas and Carneades see, and feel, and
perceive?

   Lo, a voice from heaven teaching the truth, and displaying to us a
light brighter than the sun itself.(1) Why are we unjust to ourselves, and
delay to take up wisdom, which learned men, though they wasted their lives
in its pursuit, were never able to discover. Let him who wishes to be wise
and happy hear the voice of God, learn righteousness, understand the
mystery of his birth, despise human affairs, embrace divine things, that he
may gain that chief good to which he was born. Having overthrown all false
religions, and having refuted all the arguments, as many as it was
customary or possible to bring forward in their defence; then, having
proved the systems of philosophy to be false, we must now come to true
religion and wisdom, since, as I shall teach, they are both connected
together; that we may maintain it either by arguments, or by examples, or
by competent witnesses, and may show that the folly with which those
worshippers of gods do not cease to upbraid us, has no existence with us,
but lies altogether with them. And although, in the former books, when I
was contending against false religions, and in this, when I was
overthrowing false wisdom, I showed where the truth is, yet the next book
will more plainly indicate what is true religion and what true wisdom.

THE DIVINE INSTITUTES

BOOK IV.

OF TRUE WISDOM AND RELIGION.

CHAP. I.--OF THE FORMER RELIGION OF MEN, AND HOW ERROR WAS SPREAD OVER
EVERY AGE, AND OF THE SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.

   WHEN I reflect, O Emperor Constantine, and often revolve in my mind the
original condition of men, it is accustomed to appear alike wonderful and
unworthy that, by the folly of one age embracing various superstitions, and
believing in the existence of many gods, they suddenly arrived at such
ignorance of themselves, that the truth being taken away from their eyes,
the religion of the true God was not observed, nor the condition of human
nature, since men did not seek the chief good in heaven, but on earth. And
on this account assuredly the happiness of the ancient ages was changed.
For, having left God, the parent and founder of all things, men began to
worship the senseless works(1) of their own hands. And what were the
effects of this corruption, or what evils it introduced, the subject itself
sufficiently declares. For, turning away from the chief good, which is
blessed and everlasting on this account, because it cannot be seen,(2) or
touched, or comprehended, and from the virtues which are in agreement with
that good, and which are equally immortal, gliding down to these corrupt
and frail gods, and devoting themselves to those things by which the body
only is adorned, and nourished, and delighted, they sought eternal death
for themselves, together with their gods and goods relating to the body,
because all bodies are subject to death. Superstitions of this kind,
therefore, were followed by injustice and impiety, as must necessarily be
the case. For men ceased to raise their countenances to the heaven; but,
their minds being depressed downwards, clung to goods of the earth, as they
did to earth-born superstitions.  There followed the disagreement of
mankind, and fraud, and all wickedness; because, despising eternal and
incorruptible goods, which alone ought to be desired by man, they rather
chose temporal and short-lived things, and greater trust was placed by men
in evil, inasmuch as they preferred vice to virtue, because it had
presented itself as nearer at hand.(3)

   Thus human life, which in former ages had been occupied with the
clearest light, was overspread with gloom and darkness; and in conformity
with this depravity, when wisdom was taken away, then at length men began
to claim for themselves the name of wise. For at the time when all were
wise, no one was called by that name. And would that this name, once common
to all the class, though reduced to a few, still retained its power! For
those few might perhaps be able, either by talent, or by authority, or by
continual exhortations, to free the people from vices and errors. But so
entirely had wisdom died out, that it is evident, from the very arrogance
of the name, that no one of those who were so called was really wise. And
yet, before the discovery of this philosophy, as it is termed, there are
said to have been seven,(4) who, because they ventured to inquire into and
discuss natural subjects, deserved to be esteemed and called wise men.

   O wretched and calamitous age, in which through the whole world there
were only seven who were called by the name of men, for no one can justly
be called a man unless he is wise! But if all the others besides themselves
were foolish, even they themselves were not wise, because no one can be
truly wise in the judgment of the foolish. So far were they removed from
wisdom, that not even afterwards, when learning increased, and many and
great intellects were always intent upon this very subject, could the truth
be perceived and ascertained. For, after the renown of those seven wise
men, it is incredible with how great a desire of inquiring into the truth
all Greece was inflamed. And first of all, they thought(1) the very name of
wisdom arrogant, and did not call themselves wise men, but desirous of
wisdom. By which deed they both condemned those who had rashly arrogated to
themselves the name of wise men, of error and folly, and themselves also of
ignorance, which indeed they did not deny. For wherever the nature of the
subject had, as it were, laid its hands upon their minds, so that they were
unable to give any account, they were accustomed to testify that, they knew
nothing, and discerned nothing. Wherefore they are found to be much wiser,
who in some degree saw themselves, than those who had believed that they
were wise.

CHAP. II.--WHERE WISDOM IS TO BE FOUND; WHY PYTHAGORAS AND PLATO DID NOT
APPROACH THE JEWS.

   Wherefore, if they were not wise who were so called, nor those of later
times, who did not hesitate to confess their want of wisdom, what remains
but that wisdom is to be sought elsewhere, since it has not been found
where it was sought. But what can we suppose to have been the reason why it
was not found, though sought with the greatest earnestness and labour by so
many intellects, and during so many ages, unless it be that philosophers
sought for it out of their own limits? And since they traversed and
explored all parts, but nowhere found any wisdom, and it must of necessity
be somewhere, it is evident that it ought especially to be sought there
where the title of folly(2) appears; under the covering of which God hides
the treasury of wisdom and truth, lest the secret of His divine work should
be exposed to view.(3) Whence I am accustomed to wonder that, when
Pythagoras, and after him Plato, inflamed with the love of searching out
the truth, had penetrated as far as to the Egyptians, and Magi, and
Persians, that they might become acquainted with their religious rites and
institutions (for they suspected that wisdom was concerned with religion),
they did not approach the Jews only, in whose possession alone it then was,
and to whom they might have gone more easily. But I think that they were
turned away from them by divine providence, that they might not know the
truth, because it was not yet permitted for the religion of the true God
and righteousness to become known to men of other nations.(4) For God had
determined, as the last time drew near,(5) to send from heaven a great
leader,(6) who should reveal to foreign nations that which was taken away
from a perfidious(7) and ungrateful people. And I will endeavour to discuss
the subject in this book, if I shall first have shown that wisdom is so
closely united with religion, that the one cannot be separated from the
other.

CHAP. III.--WISDOM AND RELIGION CANNOT BE SEPARATED: THE LORD OF NATURE
MUST NECESSARILY BE THE FATHER OF EVERY ONE.

   The worship of the gods, as I have taught in the former book, does not
imply wisdom; not only because it gives up man, who is a divine animal, to
earthly and frail things, but because nothing is fixed in it which may
avail for the cultivation of the character and the framing of the life; nor
does it contain any investigation of the truth, but only the rite of
worship, which does not consist in the service of the mind, but in the
employment of the body. And therefore that is not to be deemed true
religion, because it instructs and improves men by no precepts of
righteousness and virtue. Thus philosophy, inasmuch as it does not possess
true religion, that is, the highest piety, is not true wisdom. For if the
divinity which governs this world supports mankind with incredible
beneficence, and cherishes it as with paternal indulgence, wishes truly
that gratitude should be paid, and honour given to itself, man cannot
preserve his piety if he shall prove ungrateful for the heavenly benefits;
and this is certainly not the part of a wise man. Since, therefore, as I
have said, philosophy and the religious system of the gods are separated,
and far removed from each other; seeing that some are professors of wisdom,
through whom it is manifest that there is no approach to the gods, and that
others are priests of religion, through whom wisdom is not learned; it is
manifest that the one is not true wisdom, and that the other is not true
religion. Therefore I philosophy was not able to conceive the truth,  nor
was the religious system of the gods able to give an account of itself,
since it is without it. But where wisdom is joined by an inseparable
connection with religion, both must necessarily be true; because in our
worship we ought to be wise, that is, to know the proper object and  mode
of worship, and in our wisdom to worship, that is, to complete our
knowledge by deed and action.

   Where, then, is wisdom joined with religion? There, indeed, where the
one God is worshipped, where life and every action is referred to one
source, and to one supreme authority: in short, the teachers of wisdom are
the same, who are also the priests of God.(1) Nor, however, let it affect
any one, because it often has happened, and may happen, that some
philosopher may undertake a priesthood of the gods; and when this happens,
philosophy is not, however, joined with religion; but philosophy will both
be unemployed amidst sacred rites, and religion will be unemployed when
philosophy shall be treated of. For that system of religious rites is dumb,
not only because it relates to gods who are dumb, but also because its
observance is by the hand and the fingers, not by the heart and tongue, as
is the case with ours, which is true. Therefore religion is contained in
wisdom, and wisdom in religion. The one, then, cannot be separated from the
other; because wisdom is nothing else but the worship of the true God with
just and pious adoration. But that the worship of many gods is not in
accordance with nature, may be inferred and conceived even by this
argument: that every god who is worshipped by man must, amidst the solemn
rites and prayers, be invoked as father, not only for the sake of honour,
but also of reason; because he is both more ancient than man, and because
he affords life, safety, and sustenance, as a father does. Therefore
Jupiter is called father by  those who pray to him, as is Saturnus, and
Janus,  and Liber, and the rest in order; which Lucilius(2) laughs at in
the council of the gods: "So that  there is none of us who is not called
excellent father of the gods; so that father Neptunus,  Liber, father
Saturnus, Mars, Janus, father Quirinus, are called after one name." But if
nature does not permit that one man should have many fathers (for he is
produced from one only), therefore the worship of many gods is contrary to
nature, and contrary to piety.

   One only, therefore, is to be worshipped, who can truly be called
Father. He also must of necessity be Lord, because as He has power to
indulge, so also has He power to restrain. He is to be called Father on
this account, because He bestows upon us many and great things; and Lord on
this account, because He has the greatest power of chastising and
punishing. But that He who is Father is also Lord, is shown even by
reference to civil law.(3) For who will be able to bring up sons, unless he
has the power of a lord over them? Nor without reason is he called father
of a household,(4) although he only has sons: for it is plain that the name
of father embraces also slaves(5), because "household" follows; and the
name of "household" comprises also sons, because the name of "father"
precedes: from which it is evident, that the same person is both father of
his slaves s and lord of his sons. Lastly, the son is set at liberty as if
he were a slave; and the liberated slave receives the name(6) of his
patron, as if he were a son. But if a man is named father of a household,
that it may appear that he is possessed of a double power, because as a
father he ought to indulge, and as a lord to restrain, it follows that he
who is a son is also a slave, and that he who is a father is also a lord.
As, therefore, by the necessity of nature, there cannot be more than one
father, so there can only be one lord. For what will the slave do if many
lords(7) shall give commands at variance with each other? Therefore the
worship of many gods is contrary to reason and to nature, since there
cannot be many fathers or lords; but it is necessary to consider the gods
both as fathers and lords.

   Therefore the truth cannot be held where the same man is subject to
many fathers and lords, where the mind, drawn in different directions to
many objects, wanders to and fro, hither and thither. Nor can religion have
any firmness, when it is without a fixed and settled dwelling-place.
Therefore there can be no true worship of many gods; just as that cannot be
called matrimony, in which one woman has many husbands, but she will either
be called a harlot or an adulteress. For when a woman is destitute of
modesty, chastity, and fidelity, she must of necessity be without virtue.
Thus also the religious system of the gods is unchaste and unholy, because
it is destitute of faith, for that unsettled and uncertain honour has no
source or origin.

CHAP. IV.--OF WISDOM LIKEWISE, AND RELIGION, AND OF THE RIGHT OF FATHER AND
LORD.

   By these things it is evident how closely connected are wisdom and
religion. Wisdom relates to sons, and this relation requires love; religion
to servants, and this relation requires fear. For as the former are bound
to love and honour their father, so are the latter bound to respect and
venerate their lord. But with respect to God, who is one only, inasmuch as
He sustains the twofold character both of Father and Lord, we are bound
both to love Him, inasmuch as we are sons, and to fear Him, inasmuch as we
are servants.(1) Religion, therefore, cannot be divided from wisdom, nor
can wisdom be separated from religion; because it is the same God, who
ought to be understood, which is the part of wisdom, and to be honoured,
which is the part of religion. But wisdom precedes, religion follows; for
the knowledge of God comes first, His worship is the result of knowledge.
Thus in the two names there is but one meaning, though it seems to be
different in each case. For the one is concerned with the understanding,
the other with action. But, however, they resemble two streams flowing from
one fountain. But the fountain of wisdom and religion is God; and if these
two streams shall turn aside from Him, they must be dried up: for they who
are ignorant of Him cannot be wise or religious.

   Thus it comes to pass that philosophers, and those who worship many
gods, either resemble disinherited sons or runaway slaves, because the one
do not seek their father, nor the other their master. And as they who are
disinherited do not attain to the inheritance of their father, nor runaway
slaves impunity, so neither will philosophers receive immortality, which is
the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, that is, the chief good, which
they especially seek; nor will the worshippers of gods escape the penalty
of everlasting death, which is the punishment of the true Master against
those who are deserters(2) of His majesty and name. But that God is Father
and also Lord was unknown to both, to the worshippers of the gods as well
as to the professors of wisdom themselves: inasmuch as they either thought
that nothing at all was to be worshipped; or they approved of false
religions or, although they understood the strength and power of the
Supreme God (as Plato, who says that there is one God, Creator of the
world, and Marcus Tullius, who acknowledges that man has been produced by
the Supreme God in an excellent condition), nevertheless they did not
render the worship due to Him as to the supreme Father, which was their
befitting and necessary duty. But that the gods cannot be fathers or lords,
is declared not only by their multitude, as I have shown above,(3) but also
by reason: because it is not reported that man was made by gods, nor is it
found that the gods themselves preceded the origin of man, since it appears
that there were men on the earth before the birth of Vulcan, and Liber, and
Apollo, and Jupiter himself. But the creation of man is not accustomed to
be assigned to Saturnus, nor to his father Coelus.

   But if none of those who are worshipped is said to have originally
formed and created man, it follows that none of these can be called the
father of man, and so none of them can be God. Therefore it is not lawful
to worship those by whom man was not produced, for he could not be produced
by many. Therefore the one and only God ought to be worshipped, who was
before Jupiter, and Saturnus, and Coelus himself, and the earth. For He
must have fashioned man, who, before the creation of man, finished the
heaven and the earth. He alone is to be called Father who created us; He
alone is to be considered Lord who rules, who has the true and perpetual
power of life and death. And he who does not adore Him is a foolish
servant, who flees from or does not know his Master; and an undutiful son,
who either hates or is ignorant of his true Father.

CHAP. V.--THE ORACLES OF THE PROPHETS MUST BE LOOKED INTO; AND OF THEIR
TIMES, AND THE TIMES OF THE JUDGES AND KINGS.

   Now, since I have shown that wisdom and religion cannot be separated,
it remains that we speak of religion itself, and wisdom. I am aware,
indeed, how difficult it is to discuss heavenly subjects; but still the
attempt must be ventured, that the truth may be made clear and brought to
light, and that many may be freed from error and death, who despise and
refuse the truth, while it is concealed under a covering of folly. But
before I begin to speak of God and His works, I must first speak a few
things concerning the prophets, whose testimony I must now use, which I
have refrained from doing in the former books. Above all things, he who
desires to comprehend the truth ought not only to apply his mind to
understand the utterances of the prophets, but also most diligently to
inquire into the times during which each one of them existed, that he may
know what future events they predicted, and after how many years their
predictions were fulfilled.(4) Nor is there any difficulty in making these
computations; for they testified under what king each of them received the
inspiration of the Divine Spirit. And many have written and published books
respecting the times,  making their commencement from the prophet Moses,
who lived about seven hundred years before the Trojan war. But he, when he
had governed the people for forty years, was succeeded by Joshua, who held
the chief place twenty-seven years.

   After this they were under the government of judges during three
hundred anti seventy years. Then their condition was changed, and they
began to have kings; and when they had ruled during four hundred and fifty
years, until the reign of Zedekiah, the Jews having been besieged by the
king of Babylon, and carried into captivity,(1) endured a long servitude,
until, in the seventieth year afterwards, the captive Jews were restored to
their own lands and settlements by Cyrus the elder, who attained the
supreme power over the Persians, at the time when Tarquinius Superbus
reigned at Rome. Wherefore, since the whole series of times may be
collected both from the Jewish histories and from those of the Greeks and
Romans, the times of the prophets individually may also be collected; the
last of whom was Zechariah, and it is agreed on that he prophesied in the
time of King Darius, in the second year of his reign, and in the eighth
month. Of so much greater antiquity(2) are the prophets found to be than
the Greek writers. And I bring forward all these things, that they may
perceive their error who endeavour to refute Holy Scripture, as though it
were new and recently composed, being ignorant from what fountain the
origin of our holy religion flowed. But if any one, having put together
arid examined the times, shall duly lay the foundation of learning, and
fully ascertain the truth, he will also lay aside his error when he has
gained the knowledge of the truth.

CHAP. VI.--ALMIGHTY GOD BEGAT HIS SON; AND THE TESTIMONIES OF THE SIBYLS
AND OF TRISMEGISTUS CONCERNING HIM.

   God, therefore, the contriver and founder of  all things, as we have
said in the second hook,  before He commenced this excellent work of the
world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit,  whom He called His Son. And
although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings,
whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He
considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being pewerful in
His Father's excellence and majesty. But that there is a Son of  the Most
High God, who is possessed of the greatest power, is shown not only by the
unanimous utterances of the prophets, but also by the declaration of
Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls. Hermes, in the book which
is entitled The Perfect Word, made use of these words: "The Lord and
Creator of all things, whom we have thought right to call God, since He
made the second God visible and sensible. But I use the term sensible, not
because He Himself perceives (for the question is not whether He Himself
perceives), but because He leads(3) to perception and to intelligence.
Since, therefore, He made Him first, and alone, and one only, He appeared
to Him beautiful, and most full of all good things; and He hallowed Him,
and altogether loved Him as His own Son." The Erythraean Sibyl, in the
beginning of her poem, which she commenced with the Supreme God, proclaims
the Son of God as the leader and commander of all, in these verses:--

"The nourisher and creator of all things, who placed the sweet breath in
all, and made God the leader of all."

And again, at the end of the same poem:--

   "But whom God gave for faithful men to honour."

And another Sibyl enjoins that He ought to be known:--

   "Know Him as your God, who is the Son of God."

Assuredly He is the very Son of God, who by that most wise King Solomon,
full of divine inspiration, spake these things which we have added:(4) "God
founded(5) me in the beginning of His ways, in His work before the ages. He
set me up in the beginning, before He made the earth, and before He
established the depths, before the fountains of waters came forth: the Lord
begat me before all the hills; He made the regions, and the
uninhabitable(6) boundaries under the heaven. When He prepared the heaven,
I was by Him: and when He separated His own seat, when He made the strong
clouds above the winds, and when He strengthened the mountains, and placed
them under heaven; when He laid the strong foundations of the earth, I was
with Him arranging all things. I was He in whom He delighted: I was daily
delighted, when He rejoiced, the world being completed." But on this
account Trismegistus spoke of Him as "the artificer of God," and the Sibyl
calls Him "Counsellor," because He is endowed by God the Father with such
wisdom and strength, that God employed both His wisdom and hands in the
creation of the world.

CHAP. VII.--OF THE NAME OF SON, AND WHENCE HE IS CALLED JESUS AND CHRIST.

   Some one may perhaps ask who this is who is so powerful, so beloved by
God, and what name He has, who was not only begotten at first before the
world,(7) but who also arranged it by His wisdom and constructed it by His
might. First of all, it is befitting that we should know that His name is
not known even to the angels who dwell in heaven, but to Himself only, and
to God the Father; nor will that name be published, as the sacred writings
relate, before that the purpose of God shall be fulfilled. In the next
place, we must know that this name cannot be uttered by the mouth of man,
as Hermes teaches, saying these things: "Now the cause of this cause is the
will of the divine good which produced God, whose name cannot be uttered by
the mouth of man." And shortly afterwards to His Son: "There is, O Son, a
secret word of wisdom, holy respecting the only Lord of all things, and the
God first perceived(1) by the mind, to speak of whom is beyond the power of
man." But although His name, which the supreme Father gave Him from the
beginning, is known to none but Himself, nevertheless He has one name among
the angels, and another among men since He is called Jesus(2) among men:
for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by
this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this
name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the
change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus.(3) The Jews had
before been directed to compose a sacred oil, with which those who were
called to the priesthood(4) or to the kingdom might be anointed. And as now
the robe of purple(5) is a sign of the assumption of royal dignity among
the Romans, so with them the anointing with the holy oil conferred the
title and power of king. But since the ancient Greeks used the word
chri'esthai to express the art of anointing, which they now express by
alei;phesthai, as the verse of Homer shows,

   "But the attendants washed, and anointed(6) them with oil;"

on this account we call Him Christ, that is, the Anointed, who in Hebrew is
called the Messias. Hence in some Greek writings, which are badly
translated(7) from the Hebrew, the word eleimmenos(8) is found written,
from the word aleiphesthai,(9) anointing. But, however, by either name a
king is signified: not that He has obtained this earthly kingdom, the time
for receiving which has not yet arrived, but that He sways a heavenly and
eternal kingdom, concerning which we shall speak in the last book. But now
let us speak of His first nativity.

CHAP. VIII.--OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS IN THE SPIRIT AND IN THE FLESH: OF
SPIRITS AND THE TESTIMONIES OF PROPHETS.

   For we especially testify that He was twice born, first in the spirit,
and afterwards in the flesh. Whence it is thus spoken by Jeremiah:(10)
"Before I formed Thee in the womb I knew Thee." And likewise by the same:
"Who was blessed before He was born;"(11) which was the case with no one
else but Christ. For though He was the Son of God from the beginning,(12)
He was born again(13) a second time(14) according to the flesh: and this
twofold birth of His has introduced great terror into the minds of men, and
overspread with darkness even those who retained the mysteries of true
religion. But we will show this plainly and clearly, that they who love
wisdom may be more easily and diligently instructed. He who hears the Son
of God mentioned ought not to conceive in his mind so great impiety as to
think that God begat Him by marriage and union with a woman, which none
does but an animal possessed of a body, and subject to death. But with whom
could God unite Himself, since He is alone? or since His power was so
great, that He accomplished whatever He wished, assuredly He did not
require the co-operation .s of another for procreation. Unless by chance we
shall [profanely] imagine, as Orpheus supposed, that God is both male and
female, because otherwise He would have been unable to beget, unless He had
the power of each sex, as though He could have intercourse with Himself, or
without such intercourse be unable to produce.

   But Hermes also was of the same opinion, when he says that He was "His
own father," and "His own mother."(16) But if this were so, as He is called
by the prophets father, so also He would be called mother. In what manner,
then, did He beget Him? First of all, divine operations cannot be known or
declared(17) by any one; but nevertheless the sacred writings teach us, in
which it is laid down(18) that this Son of God is the speech, or even the
reason(19) of God, and also that the other angels are spirits(1) of God.
For speech is breath sent forth with a voice signifying something. But,
however, since breath and speech are sent forth from different parts,
inasmuch as breath proceeds from the nostrils, speech from the mouth, the
difference between the Son of God and the other angels is great. For they
proceeded from God as silent spirits, because they were not created to
teach(2) the knowledge of God, but for His service. But though He is
Himself also a spirit, yet He proceeded from the mouth of God with voice
and sound, as the Word, on this account indeed, because He was about to
make use of His voice to the people; that is, because He was about to be a
teacher of the knowledge of God, and of the heavenly mystery(3) to be
revealed to man: which word also God Himself first spoke, that through Him
He might speak to us, and that He might reveal to us the voice and will of
God.

   With good reason, therefore, is He called the Speech and the Word of
God, because God, by a certain incomprehensible energy and power of His
majesty, enclosed the vocal spirit proceeding from His mouth, which he had
not conceived in the womb, but in His mind, within a form which has life
through its own perception and wisdom, and He also fashioned other spirits
of His into angels. Our spirits(4) are liable to dissolution, because we
are mortal: but the spirits of God both live, and are lasting, and have
perception; because He Himself is immortal, and the Giver both of
perception(5) and life. Our expressions, although they are mingled with the
air, and fade away, yet generally remain comprised in letters; how much
more must we believe that the voice of God both remains for ever, and is
accompanied with perception and power, which it has derived from God the
Father,  as a stream from its fountain! But if any one wonders that God
could be produced from God  by a putting forth of the voice and breath, if
he  is acquainted with the sacred utterances of the prophets he will cease
to wonder. That Solomon  and his father David were most powerful kings, and
also prophets, may perhaps be known even to those who have not applied
themselves to the sacred writings; the one of whom, who reigned
subsequently to the other, preceded the destruction of the city of Troy by
one hundred and forty years. His father, the writer of sacred hymns, thus
speaks in the thirty-second Psalm:(6) "By the word of God we, re the
heavens made firm; and all their power(7) by the breath of His mouth." And
also again in the forty-fourth Psalm:(8) "My heart hath given utterance to
a good word; I speak of my doings towards the king;" testifying, in truth,
that the works of God are known to no other than to the Son alone, who is
the Word of God, and who must reign for ever. Solomon also shows that it is
the Word of God, and no other,(9) by whose hands these works of the world
were made. "I," He says, "came forth out of the mouth of the Most High
before all creatures: I caused the light that faileth not to arise in the
heavens, and covered the whole earth with a cloud. I have dwelt in the
height, and my throne is in the pillar of the cloud."(10) John also thus
taught: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made
by Him, and without Him was not anything made."(11)

CHAP. IX.--OF THE WORD OF GOD.

   But the Greeks speak of Him as the Logos,(12) more befittingly than we
do as the word, or speech: for Logos signifies both speech and reason,
inasmuch as He is both the voice and the wisdom of God. And of this divine
speech not even the philosophers were ignorant, since Zeno represents the
Logos as the arranger of the established order of things, and the framer of
the universe: whom also He calls Fate, and the necessity of things, and
God, and the soul of Jupiter, in accordance with the custom, indeed, by
which they are wont to regard Jupiter as God. But the words are no
obstacle, since the sentiment is in agreement with the truth. For it is the
spirit of God which he named the soul of Jupiter. For Trismegistus, who by
some means or other searched into almost all truth, often described the
excellence and majesty of the word, as the instance before mentioned
declares, in which he acknowledges that there is an ineffable and sacred
speech, the relation of which exceeds the measure of man's ability. I have
spoken briefly, as I have been able, concerning the first nativity. Now I
must more fully discuss the second, since this is the subject most
controverted, that we may hold forth the light of understanding to those
who desire to know the truth.

CHAP. X.--OF THE ADVENT OF JESUS; OF THE FORTUNES OF THE JEWS, AND THEIR
GOVERNMENT, UNTIL THE PASSION OF THE LORD.

   In the first place, then, men ought to know that the arrangements of
the Most High God have so advanced from the beginning, that it was
necessary, as the end of the world(1) approached, that the Son of God
should descend to the earth, that He might build a temple for God, and
teach righteousness; but, however, not with the might of an angel or with
heavenly power, but in the form of man and in the condition of a mortal,
that when He had discharged the office of His ministry,(2) He might be
delivered into the hands of wicked men, and might undergo death, that,
having subdued this also by His might, He might rise again, and bring to
man, whose nature He had put on(3) and represented, the hope of overcoming
death, and might admit him to the rewards of immortality. And that no one
may be ignorant of this arrangement, we will show that all things were
foretold which we see fulfilled in Christ. Let no one believe our assertion
unless I shall show that the prophets before a long series of ages
published that it should come to pass at length that the Son of God should
be born as a man, and perform wonderful deeds, and sow(4) the worship of
God throughout the whole earth, and at last be crucified, and on the third
day rise again. And when I shall have proved all these things by the
writings of those very men who treated with violence their God who had
assumed a mortal  body, what else will prevent it from being manifest that
true wisdom is conversant with this religion only? Now the origin of the
whole mystery is to be related.

   Our ancestors,(5) who were chiefs of the Hebrews, when they were
distressed by famine and want, passed over into Egypt, that they might
obtain a supply of corn; and sojourning there a long time, they were
oppressed with an intolerable yoke of slavery. Then God pitied them, and
led them out, and freed them from the hand of the king of the Egyptians,
after four hundred and thirty(6) years, under the leadership of Moses,
through whom the law was afterwards given to them by God; and in this
leading out God displayed the power of His majesty. For He made  His people
to pass through the midst of the Red Sea, His angel(7) going before and
dividing the water, so that the people might walk over the dry land, of
whom it might more truly be said (as the poet says(8)), that "the wave,
closing over him after the appearance of a mountain, stood around him." And
when he heard of this, the tyrant of the Egyptians followed with this great
host of his men, and rashly entering the sea which still lay open, was
destroyed, together with his whole army, by the waves returning(9) to their
place. But the Hebrews, when they had entered into the wilderness, saw many
wonderful deeds. For when they suffered thirst, a rock having been struck
with a rod, a fountain of water sprung forth and refreshed the people. And
again, when they were hungry, a shower(10) of heavenly nourishment
descended. Moreover, also, the wind(11) brought quails into their camp, so
that they were not only satisfied with heavenly bread, but also with more
choice banquets. And yet, in return for these divine benefits, they did not
pay honour to God; but when slavery had been now removed from them, and
their thirst and hunger laid aside, they fell away into luxury, and
transferred their minds to the profane rites of the Egyptians. For when
Moses, their leader,  had ascended into the mountain, and there tarried
forty days, they made the head(12) of an ox in gold, which they call
Apis,(13) that it might go before them as a standard.(14) With which sin
and crime God was offended, and justly visited the impious and ungrateful
people with severe punishments, and made them subject to the law(15) which
He had given by Moses.

   But afterwards, when they had settled in a desert part of Syria, the
Hebrews(16) lost their ancient name; and since the leader of their host(17)
was Judas, they were called Jews,(18) and the land which they inhabited
Judaea. And at first, indeed, they were not subject to the dominion of
Kings, but civil Judges presided over the people and the law: they were
not, however, appointed only for a year, as the Roman consuls, but
supported by a perpetual jurisdiction. Then, the name of Judges being taken
away, the kingly power was introduced. But during the government of the
Judges the people had often undertaken corrupt religious rites; and God,
offended by them, as often brought them into bondage to n strangers, until
again, softened by the repentance  of the people, He freed them from
bondage.  Likewise under the Kings, being oppressed by  wars with their
neighbours on account of their iniquities, and at last taken captive and
led to  Babylon, they suffered punishment for their impiety by oppressive
slavery, until Cyrus came to the kingdom, who immediately restored the Jews
by an edict. Afterwards they had tetrarchs until the time of Herod, who was
in the reign of Tiberius Caesar; in whose fifteenth year, in the consulship
of the two Gemini, on the 23d of March,(1) the Jews crucified Christ. This
series of events, this order, is contained in the secrets of the sacred
writings. But I will first show for what reason Christ came to the earth,
that the foundation and the system of divine religion may be manifest.

CHAP. XI.--OF THE CAUSE OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST.

   When the Jews often resisted wholesome precepts, and departed from the
divine law, going astray to the impious worship of false gods, then God
filled just and chosen men with the Holy Spirit, appointing them as
prophets in the midst of the people, by whom He might rebuke with
threatening words the sins of the ungrateful people, and nevertheless
exhort them to repent of their wickedness; for unless they did this, and,
laying aside their vanities, return to their God, it would come to pass
that He would change His covenant,(2) that is, bestow(3) the inheritance of
eternal life upon foreign nations, and collect to Himself a more faithful
people out of those who were aliens(4) by birth. But they, when rebuked by
the prophets, not only rejected their words; but being offended because
they were upbraided for their sins, they slew the prophets themselves with
studied(5) tortures: all which things are sealed up and preserved in the
sacred writings. For the prophet Jeremiah says:(6) "I sent to you my
servants the prophets; I sent them before the morning light; but ye did not
hearken, nor incline your ears to hear, when I spake unto you: let every
one of you turn from his evil way, and from your most corrupt affections;
and ye shall dwell in the land which I gave to you and to your fathers for
ever.(7) Walk ye not after strange gods, to serve them; and provoke me not
to anger with the works of your hands, that I should destroy you." The
prophet Ezra(8) also, who was in the times of the same Cyrus by whom the
Jews were restored, thus speaks: They rebelled against Thee, and cast Thy
law behind their backs, and slew Thy prophets which testified against them,
that they might turn unto Thee."

   The prophet Elias also, in the third book of Kings:(9) "I have been
very jealous(10) for the Lord God of hosts, because the children of Israel
have forsaken Thee, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with
the sword; and I only am left, and they seek my life to take it away." On
account of these impieties of theirs He cast them off for ever;(11) and so
He ceased to send to them prophets. But He commanded His own Son, the
first-begotten,(12) the maker of all things, His own counsellor, to descend
from heaven, that He might transfer the sacred religion of God to the
Gentiles,(13) that is, to those who were ignorant of God, and might teach
them righteousness, which the perfidious people had cast aside  And He had
long before threatened that He would do this, as the prophet Malachi(14)
shows, saying: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord, and I will not
accept an offering from your hands; for from the rising of the sun even
unto its setting, my name shall be great(15) among the Gentiles." David
also in the seventeenth Psalm(16) says: "Thou wilt make me the head of the
heathen; a people whom I have not known shall serve me" Isaiah(17) also
thus speaks: "I come to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come
and see my glory; and I will send among them a sign, and I will send those
that escape of them unto the nations which are afar off, which have not
heard my fame; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles."
Therefore, when God wished to send to the earth one who should measure(1)
His temple, He was unwilling to send him with heavenly power and glory,
that the people who had been ungrateful towards God might be led into the
greatest error, and suffer punishment for their crimes, since they had not
received their Lord and God, as the prophets had before foretold that it
would thus happen. For Isaiah whom the Jews most cruelly slew, cutting him
asunder with a saw,(2) thus speaks:(3) "Hear, O heaven; and give ear, O
earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have begotten sons, and lifted(4) them
up on high, and they have rejected me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the
ass his master's stall; but Israel hath not known, my people has not
understood." Jeremiah also says, in like manner:(5) "The turtle and the
swallow hath known her time, and the sparrows of the field have observed(6)
the tithes of their coining: but my people have not known the judgment of
the Lord. How do you say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us?
The meting out(7) is in vain; the scribes are deceived and confounded: the
wise men are dismayed and taken, for they have rejected the word of the
Lord."

   Therefore (as I had begun to say), when God had determined to send to
men a teacher of righteousness, He commanded Him to be born again a second
time in the flesh, and to be made in the likeness of man himself, to whom
he was about to be a guide, and companion, and teacher. But since God is
kind and merciful(8) to His people, He sent Him to those very persons whom
He hated,(9) that He might not close the way of salvation against them for
ever, but might give them a free opportunity of following God, that they
might both gain the reward of life if they should follow Him (which many of
them do, and have done), and that they might incur the penalty of death by
their fault if they should reject their King. He ordered Him therefore to
be born again among them, and of their seed, lest, if He should be born of
another nation, they might be able to allege a just excuse from the law for
their rejection of Him; and at the same time, that there might be no nation
at all under heaven to which the hope of immortality should be denied.

CHAP. XII.--OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS FROM THE VIRGIN; OF HIS LIFE, DEATH, AND
RESURRECTION, AND THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROPHETS RESPECTING THESE THINGS.

   Therefore the Holy Spirit of God, descending from heaven, chose the
holy Virgin, that He might enter into her womb.(10) But she, I being filled
by the possession(11) of the Divine Spirit, conceived; and without any
intercourse with a man, her virgin womb was suddenly impregned. But if it
is known to all that certain animals are accustomed to conceive(12) by the
wind and the breeze, why should any one think it wonderful when we say that
a virgin was made fruitful by the Spirit of God, to whom whatever He may
wish is easy? And this might have appeared incredible, had not the prophets
many ages previously foretold its occurrence. Thus Solomon speaks:(13) "The
womb of a virgin was strengthened, and conceived; and a virgin was made
fruitful, and became a mother in great pity." Likewise the prophet
Isaiah,(14) whose words are these: "Therefore God Himself shall give you a
sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call
His name Emmanuel." What can be more manifest than this? This was read by
the Jews, who denied Him. If any one thinks that these things are invented
by us, let him inquire of them, let him take especially from them: the
testimony is sufficiently strong to prove the truth, when it is alleged by
enemies themselves, But He was never called Emmanuel, but Jesus, who in
Latin is called Saving, or Saviour,(15) because He comes bringing salvation
to all nations. But by this name the prophet declared that God incarnate
was about to come to men. For Emmanuel signifies God with us; because when
He was born of a  virgin, men ought to confess that God was with them, that
is, on the earth and in mortal flesh. Whence David(16) says in the eighty-
fourth Psalm, "Truth has sprung out of the earth;" because God, in whom is
truth, hath taken a body of earth, that He might open a way of salvation to
those of the earth. In like manner Isaiah also:(17) "But they disbelieved,
and vexed His Holy Spirit; and He was turned to be their enemy. And He
Himself fought against them, and He remembered the days of old,(1) who
raised up from the earth a shepherd of the sheep." But who this shepherd
was about to be, he declared in another place,(2) saying: "Let the heavens
rejoice, and let the clouds put on righteousness; let the earth open, and
put forth a Saviour. For I the Lord have begotten Him." But the Saviour is,
as we have said before, Jesus. But in another place the same prophet also
thus proclaimed:(3) "Behold, unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is
given, whose dominion is upon His shoulders, and His name is called
Messenger of great counsel." For on this account He was sent by God the
Father, that He might reveal to all the nations which are under heaven the
sacred mystery of the only true God, which was taken away from the
perfidious people, who ofttimes sinned against God. Daniel also foretold
similar things:(4) "I saw," he said, "in a vision of the night, and,
behold, one like the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, and He
came even to the Ancient of days. And they who stood by brought Him near(5)
s before Him. And there was given unto Him a kingdom, and glory, and
dominion; and all people, tribes, and languages shall serve Him: and His
dominion is everlasting, which shall never pass away, and His kingdom shall
not be destroyed." How then do the Jews both confess and expect the Christ
of God? who rejected Him on this account, because He was born of man. For
since it is so arranged by God that the same Christ should twice come to
the earth, once to announce to the nations the one God, then again to
reign, why do they who did not believe in His first advent believe in the
second?

   But the prophet comprises both His advents in few words. Behold, he
says, one like the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He did not
say, like the Son of God, but the Son of man, that he might show that He
had(6) to be clothed with flesh on the earth, that having assumed the form
of a man and the condition of mortality, He might teach men righteousness;
and when, having completed the commands of God, He had revealed the truth
to the nations, He might also suffer death, that He might overcome and lay
open(7) the other world also, and thus at length rising again, He might
proceed to His Father borne aloft on a cloud.(8) For the prophet said in
addition: And came even to the Ancient of days, and was presented to Him.
He called the Most High God the Ancient of days, whose age and origin
cannot be comprehended; for He alone was from generations, and He will be
always to generations.(9) But that Christ, after His passion and
resurrection, was about to ascend to God the Father, David bore witness in
these words in the cixth Psalm:(10) "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou
at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Whom could
this prophet, being himself a king, call his Lord, who sat at the right
hand of God, but Christ the Son of God, who is King of kings and Lord of
lords? And this is more plainly shown by Isaiah,(11) when he says: "Thus
saith the Lord God to my Lord Christ, whose right hand I have holden; I
will  subdue nations before Him, and will break the strength of kings. I
will open before Him gates, and the cities shall not be closed. I will go
before Thee, and will make the mountains level; and I will break in pieces
the gates of brass, and shatter the bars of iron; and I will  give Thee the
hidden and invisible treasures, that Thou mayest know that I am the Lord
God, which call Thee by Thy name, the God of Israel." Lastly, on account of
the goodness and faithfulness which He displayed towards God on earth,
there was given to Him a kingdom, and glory, and dominion; and all people,
tribes, and languages shall serve Him; and His dominion is everlasting, and
that which shall never pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed.
And this is understood in two ways: that even now He has an everlasting
dominion, when all nations and all languages adore His name, confess His
majesty, follow His teaching, and imitate His goodness: He has power and
glory, in that all tribes of the earth obey His precepts. And also, when He
shall come again with majesty and glory to judge every soul, and to restore
the righteous to life, then He shall truly have the government of the whole
earth: then, every evil having been removed from the affairs of men, a
golden age (as the poets call it), that is, a time of righteousness and
peace, will arise. But we will speak of these things more fully in the last
book, when we shall speak of His second advent; now let us treat of His
first advent, as we began.

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

   Therefore the Most High God, and Parent of all, when He had purposed to
transfer(12) His religion, sent from heaven a teacher of righteousness,
that in Him or through Him He might give a new law to new worshippers; not
as He had before done, by the instrumentality of man. Nevertheless it was
His pleasure that He should be born as a man, that in all things He might
be like His supreme Father  For God the Father Himself, who is the origin
and source of all things, inasmuch as He is without parents, is most truly
named by Trismegistus "fatherless" and "motherless,"(1) because He was born
from no one. For which reason it was befitting that the Son also should be
twice born, that He also might become "fatherless" and "motherless." For in
His first nativity, which was spiritual, He was "motherless," because He
was begotten by God the Father alone, without the office of a mother. But
in His second, which was in the flesh, He was born of a virgin's womb
without the office of a father, that, bearing a middle substance between
God and man, He might be able, as it were, to take by the hand this frail
and weak nature of ours, and raise it to immortality. He became both the
Son of God through the Spirit, and the Son of man through the flesh,--that
is, both God and man. The power of God was displayed in Him, from the works
which He performed; the frailty of the man, from the passion which He
endured: on what account He undertook it I will mention a little later. In
the meantime, we learn from the predictions of the prophets that He was
both God and man-- composed(2) of both natures. Isaiah testifies that He
was God in these words:(3) "Egypt is wearied,(4) and the merchandise of
Ethiopia, and the Sabaeans, men of stature, shall come over unto Thee, and
shall be Thy servants: and they shall walk behind Thee; in chains they
shall fall down unto Thee, and shall make supplication unto Thee, Since God
is in Thee, and there is no other God besides Thee. For Thou art God, and
we knew Thee not, the God of lsrael, the Savour. They shall all be
confounded and ashamed who oppose Thee, and shall fall into confusion." In
like manner the prophet Jeremiah(5) thus speaks: "This is our God, and
there shall none other be compared unto Him. He hath found out all the way
of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant, and to Israel His
beloved. Afterward He was seen upon earth, and dwelt among men."

   David also, in the forty-fourth Psalm:(6) "Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness l therefore God, Thy
God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness." By which word he also
shows His name, since (as I have shown above) He was called Christ from His
anointing. Then, that He was also man, Jeremiah teaches, saying:(7) "And He
is a man, and who hath known Him?" Also Isaiah:(8) "And God shall send to
them a man, who shall save them, shall save them by judging." But Moses
also, in Numbers,(9) thus speaks: "There shall arise a star out of Jacob,
and a man(10) shall spring forth from Israel." On which account the
Milesian Apollo,(11) being asked whether He was God or  man, replied in
this manner: "He was mortal as to His body, being wise with wondrous works;
but being taken with arms under Chaldean  judges, with nails and the cross
He endured a  bitter end." In the first verse he spoke the  truth, but he
skilfully deceived him who asked the question, who was entirely ignorant of
the mystery of the truth. For he appears to have denied that He was God.
But when he acknowledges that He was mortal as to the flesh, which we also
declare, it follows that as to the spirit He was God, which we affirm. For
why would it have been necessary to make mention of the flesh, since it was
sufficient to say that He was mortal? But being pressed by the truth, he
could not deny the real state of the case; as that which he says, that He
was wise.

   What do you reply to this, Apollo? If he is wise, then his system of
instruction is wisdom, and no other; and they are wise who follow it, and
no others. Why then are we commonly esteemed as foolish, and visionary, and
senseless, who follow a Master who is wise even by the confession of the
gods themselves? For in that he said that He wrought wonderful deeds, by
which He especially claimed faith is His divinity, he now appears to assent
to us, when he says the same things in which we boast. But, however, he
recovers himself, and again has recourse to demoniacal frauds. For when he
had been compelled to speak the truth, he now appeared to be a betrayer of
the gods and of himself, unless he had, by a deceptive falsehood, concealed
that which the truth had extorted from him. He says, therefore, that He did
indeed perform wonderful works, yet not by divine power, but by magic. What
wonder if Apollo thus persuaded men ignorant of the truth, when the Jews
also, worshippers (as they seemed to be) of the Most High God, entertained
the same opinion, though they had every day before their eyes those mira-
cles which the prophets had foretold to them as about to happen, and yet
they could not be induced by the contemplation of such powers to believe
that He whom they saw was God? On this account, David, whom they especially
read above the other prophets, in the twenty-seventh Psalm(1) thus condemns
them: "Render to them their desert, because they regard not the works of
the Lord." Both David himself and other prophets announced that of the
house of this very David, Christ should be born according to the flesh.
Thus it is written in Isaiah:(2) "And in that day there shall be a root of
Jesse, and He who shall arise to rule over the nations, in Him shall the
Gentiles trust; and His rest shall be glorious." And in another place:(3)
"There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a blossom(4)
shall grow out of his root; and the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him, the
spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and of might, the
spirit of knowledge and of  piety; and He shall be filled(5) with the
spirit of fear of the Lord." Now Jesse was the father of David, from whose
root he foretold that a blossom would arise; namely him of whom the Sibyl
speaks, "A pure blossom shall spring forth."

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

CHAP. XIV.--OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF JESUS FORETOLD BY THE PROPHETS.

   From which things it is evident that all the prophets declared
concerning Christ, that it should come to pass at some time, that being
born with a body(12) of the race of David, He should build an eternal
temple in honour of God, which is called the Church, and assemble all
nations to the true worship of God. This is the faithful house, this is the
everlasting temple; and if any one hath not sacrificed in this, he will not
have the reward of immortality. And since Christ was the builder of this
great and eternal temple, He must also have an everlasting priesthood in
it; and there can be no approach to the shrine of the temple, and to the
sight of God, except through Him who built the temple. David  in the cixth
Psalm teaches the same, saying:(13) "Before the morning-star I begat Thee.
The  Lord hath sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever,
after the order of Melchisedec."  Also in the first book of Kings:(14) "And
I will raise me up a faithful Priest, who shall do all things that are in
mine heart; and I will build him a sure(15) house; and he shall walk in my
sight(16) all his days." But who this was about to be, to whom God promised
an everlasting priesthood, Zechariah most plainly teaches, even mentioning
His name:(17) "And the Lord God showed me Jesus(1) the great Priest
standing before the face of the angel of the Lord, and the adversary(2) was
standing at His right hand to resist Him. And the Lord said unto the
adversary, The Lord who hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee; and lo, a brand
plucked out of the fire. And Jesus was clothed with filthy garments, and He
was standing before the face of the angel. And He answered and spake unto
those that stood around before His face, saying, Take away the filthy
garments from Him, and clothe Him with a flowing(3) garment, and place a
fair mitre(4) upon His head; and they clothed Him with a garment, and
placed a fair mitre upon His head. And the angel of the Lord stood, and
protested, saying to Jesus: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, If Thou wilt walk
in my ways, and keep my precepts, Thou shalt judge my house, and I will
give Thee those that may walk with Thee in the midst of these that stand
by. Hear, therefore, O Jesus, Thou great Priest."

   Who, therefore, would not believe that the Jews were then deprived of
understanding, who, when they read and heard these things, laid impious
hands upon their God? But from the time in which Zechariah lived, until the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, in which Christ was
crucified, nearly five hundred years are reckoned; since he flourished in
the time of Darius and Alexander,(5) who lived not long after the
banishment of Tarquinius Superbus. But they were again misled and deceived
in the same manner, in supposing that these things were spoken concerning
Jesus(6) the son of Nave, who was the successor of Moses, or concerning
Jesus the high priest the son of Josedech; to whom none of those things
which the prophet related was suited. For they were never clothed in filthy
garments, since one of them was a most powerful prince, and the other high
priest; or suffered any adversity, so that they should be regarded as a
brand plucked from the fire: not did they ever stand in the presence of God
and the angels; nor did the prophet speak of the past so much as of the
future. He spoke, therefore, of Jesus the Son of God, to show that He would
first come in humility and in the flesh. For this is the filthy garment,
that He might prepare a temple for God, and might be scorched(7) as a brand
with fire--that is, might endure tortures from men, and at last be
extinguished. For a haft-burnt brand drawn forth from the hearth and
extinguished, is commonly so called,(8) But in what manner and with what
commands He was sent by God to the earth, the Spirit of God declared
through the prophet, teaching us that when He had faithfully and uniformly
fulfilled the will of His supreme Father, He should receive judgment(9) and
an everlasting dominion. If, He says, Thou wilt walk in my ways, and keep
my  precepts, then Thou shalt judge my house. What these ways of God were,
and what His precepts,  is neither doubtful nor obscure. For God, when He
saw that wickedness and the worship of false gods had so prevailed
throughout the world, that His name had now also been taken away from the
memory of men (since even the Jews, who alone had been entrusted with the
secret of God, had deserted the living God, and, ensared by the deceits of
demons, had gone astray, and turned aside to the worship of images, and
when rebuked by the prophets did not choose to return to God), He sent His
Son(10) as an ambassador to men, that He might turn them from their impious
and vain worship to the knowledge and worship of the true God; and also
that He might turn their minds from foolishness to wisdom, and from
wickedness to deeds of righteousness. These are the ways of God, in which
He enjoined Him to walk. These are the precepts which He ordered to be
observed. But He exhibited faith towards God. For He taught that there is
but one God, and that He alone ought to be worshipped. Nor did He at any
time say that He Himself was God; for He would not have maintained His
faithfulness, if, when sent to abolish the false gods, and to assert the
existence of the one God, He had introduced another besides that one. This
would have been not to proclaim one God, nor to do the work of Him who sent
Him, but to discharge a peculiar office for Himself, and to separate
Himself from Him whom He came to reveal. On which account, because He was
so faithful, because He arrogated nothing at all to Himself, that He might
fulfil the commands of Him who sent Him, He received the dignity of
everlasting Priest, and the honour of supreme King, and the authority of
Judge, and the name of God.

CHAP. XV.--OF THE LIFE AND MIRACLES OF JESUS, AND TESTIMONIES CONCERNING
THEM.

   Having spoken of the second nativity, in which, He showed Himself in
the flesh to men, let us come to those wonderful works, on account of
which, though they were signs of heavenly power, the Jews esteemed Him a
magician. When He first began to reach maturity(1) He was baptized by the
prophet John in the river Jordan, that He might wash(2) away in the
spiritual layer not His own sins, for it is evident that He had none, but
those of the flesh,(3) which He bare; that as He saved the Jews by
undergoing circumcision, so He might save the Gentiles also by baptism--
that is, by the pouring forth(4) of the purifying dew. Then a voice from
heaven was heard: " Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee."(5) Which
voice is found to have been foretold by David. And the Spirit of God
descended upon Him, formed after the appearance of a white dove.(6) From
that time He began to perform the greatest miracles, not by magical tricks,
which display nothing true and substantial, but by heavenly strength and
power, which were foretold even long ago by the prophets who announced Him;
which works are so many, that a single book is not sufficient to comprise
them all. I will therefore enumerate them briefly and generally, without
any designation of persons and places, that I may be able to come to the
setting forth of His passion and cross, to which my discourse has long been
hastening. His powers were those which Apollo called wonderful:(7) that
wherever He journeyed, by a single word, and in a single moment, He healed
the sick and infirm, and those afflicted with every kind of disease: so
that those who were deprived of the use of all their limbs, having suddenly
received power, were strengthened, and themselves carried their couches, on
which they had a little time before been carried. But to the lame, and to
those afflicted with some defect(8) of the feet, He not only gave the power
of walking, but also of running. Then, also, if any had their eyes blinded
in the deepest darkness, He restored them to their former sight. He also
loosened the tongues  of the dumb, so that(9) they discoursed and spoke
eloquently. He also opened the ears of the deaf, and caused them to
hear;(10) He cleansed the polluted and the blemished.(11) And He performed
all these things not by His hands, or the application of any remedy,(12)
but by His word and command, as also the Sibyl had foretold:

   "Doing all things by His word, and healing every disease."

   Nor, indeed, is it wonderful that He did wonderful things by His word,
since He Himself was the Word of God, relying upon heavenly strength and
power. Nor was it enough that He gave strength to the feeble, soundness of
body to the maimed, health to the sick and languishing, unless He also
raised the dead, as it were unbound from sleep, and recalled them to life.

   And the Jews, then, when they saw these things, contended that they
were done by demoniacal power, although it was contained in their secret
writings that all things should thus come to pass as they did. They read
indeed the words of other prophets, and of Isaiah,(13) saying: "Be strong,
ye hands that are relaxed; and ye weak knees, be comforted. Ye who are of a
fearful(14)  heart, fear not, be not afraid: our Lord shall execute
judgment; He Himself shall come and save us. Then shall the eyes of the
blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear: then shall the lame
man leap as a deer, and the tongue of the dumb speak plainly:(15) for in
the wilderness water hath broken forth, and a stream in the thirsty land."
But the Sibyl also foretold the same things in these verses:--

"And there shall be a rising again of the dead; and the course of the lame
shall be swift, and the deaf shall hear, and the blind shall see,the dumb
shall speak."

On account of these powers and divine works wrought by Him when a great
multitude followed Him of the maimed, or sick, or of those who desired to
present their sick to be healed, He went up into a desert mountain to pray
there. And when He had tarried there three days, and the people were
suffering from hunger, He called His disciples, and asked what quantity of
food(16) they had with them. But they said that they had five loaves and
two fishes in a wallet. Then He commanded that these should be brought
forward, and that the multitude, distributed by riffles, should recline an
the ground. When the disciples did this, He Himself broke the bread in
pieces, and divided the flesh of the fishes, and in His hands both of them
were increased. And when He had ordered the disciples to set them  before
the people, five thousand men were satisfied, and moreover twelve
baskets(17) were filled  from the fragments which remained. What can be
more wonderful, either in narration or in aclion? But the Sibyl had before
foretold that it  would take place, whose verses are related to this
effect:--

   "With five loaves at the same time, and with two fishes,
   He shall satisfy five thousand men in the wilderness;
   And afterwards taking all the fragments that remain,
   He shall fill twelve baskets to the hope of many."

I ask, therefore, what the art of magic could have contrived in this case,
the skill of which is of avail for nothing else than for deceiving(1) the
eves? He also, when He was about to retire to a mountain, as He was wont,
for the sake of prayer, directed His disciples to take a small ship and go
before Him. But they, setting out when evening was now coming on, began to
be distressed(2) through a contrary wind. And when they were now in the
midst of the sea,(3) then, setting His feet on the sea,(4) He came up to
them, walking as though on the solid ground,(5) not as the poets fable
Orion walking on the sea, who, while a part of his body was sunk in the
water,

   "With his shoulder rises above the waves."(6)

And again, when He had gone to sleep in the ship, and the wind had begun to
rage, even to the extremity of danger, being aroused from sleep, He
immediately ordered the wind to be silent; and the waves, which were borne
with great violence, were still, and immediately at His word there followed
a calm.

   But perhaps the sacred writings(7) speak falsely, when they teach that
there was such power in Him, that by His command He compelled the winds to
obey, the seas to serve Him, diseases to depart, the dead to be submissive.
Why should I say that the Sibyls before taught the same things in their
verses? one of whom, already mentioned, thus speaks:--

   "He shall still the winds by His word, and calm the sea
   As it rages, treading with feet of peace and in faith."

And again another, which says:--

   "He shall walk on the waves, He shall release men from disease.
   He shall raise the dead, and drive away many pains;
   And from the bread of one wallet there shall be a satisfying of men."

Some, refuted by these testimonies, are accustomed to have recourse to the
assertion that these poems were not by the Sibyls, but made up and composed
by our own writers. But he will assuredly not think this who has read
Cicero,(8) and Varro, and other ancient writers, who make mention of the
Erythraean and the other Sibyls, from whose books we bring forward these
examples; and these authors died before the birth of Christ according to
the flesh. But I do not doubt that these poems were in former times
regarded as ravings, since no one then understood them. For they announced
some marvellous wonders, of which neither the manner, nor the time, nor the
author was signified. Lastly, the Erythraean Sibyl says that it would come
to pass that she would be called mad and deceitful. But assuredly

                               "They will say that the Sibyl
   Is mad, and deceitful: but when all things shall come to pass,
   Then ye will remember me; and no one will any longer
   Say that I, the prophetess of the great God, am mad."

Therefore they were(9) neglected for many ages; but they received attention
after the nativity and passion of Christ had revealed secret things. Thus
it was also with the utterances of the prophets, which were read by the
people of the Jews for fifteen hundred years and more, but yet were not
understood until after Christ had explained(10) them both by His word and
by His works. For the prophets spoke of Him; nor could the things which
they said have been in any way understood, unless they had been altogether
fulfilled.

CHAP. XVI.--OF THE PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST; THAT IT WAS FORETOLD.

   I come now to the passion itself, which is often cast in our teeth as a
reproach:(11) that we worship a man, and one who was visited and tormented
with remarkable punishment: that I may show that this very passion was
undergone by Him in accordance with a great and divine plan, and that
goodness and truth and wisdom are contained in it alone. For if He had been
most happy on the earth, and had reigned through all His life in the
greatest prosperity, no wise man would either have believed Him to be a
God, or judged Him worthy of divine honour: which is the case with those
who are destitute of true divinity, who not only look up(12) to perishable
riches, and frail power, and the advantages arising from the benefit of
another, but even consecrate them, and knowingly do service to the memory
of the dead, worshipping fortune when it is now extinguished, which the
wise never regarded as an object of worship even when alive and present
with them. For nothing among earthly things can be venerable and worthy of
heaven; but it is virtue alone, and justice alone, which can be judged a
true and heavenly, and perpetual good, because it is neither given to any
one, nor taken away. And since Christ came upon earth, supplied with virtue
and righteousness, yea rather, since He Himself is virtue and Himself
righteousness, He descended that He might teach it and mould the character
of man. And having performed this office and embassy from God, on account
of this very virtue which He at once taught and practised, He deserved, and
was able, to be believed a God by all nations. Therefore, when a great
multitude from time to time flocked to Him, either on account of the
righteousness which He taught or on account of the miracles which He
worked,  and heard His precepts, and believed that He was sent by God, and
that He was the Son of God, then the rulers and priests of the Jews,
excited with anger because they were rebuked by Him as sinners, and
perverted by envy, because,  while the multitude flocked to Him, they saw
themselves despised and deserted, and (that which was the crowning point of
their guilt) blinded by folly and error, and unmindful of the instructors
sent from heaven, and of the prophets, they caballed against Him, and
conceived the impious design of putting Him to death, and torturing Him: of
which the prophets had long before written.

   For both David, in the beginning of his Psalms, foreseeing in spirit
what a crime they were about to commit, says,(1) "Blessed is the man who
hath not walked in the way of the ungodly;" and Solomon in the book of
Wisdom used these words:(2) "Let us defraud the righteous, for he is
unpleasant to us, and upbraideth us with our offences against the law. He
maketh his boast that he has the knowledge of God; and he calleth himself
the Son of God. He is made to reprove(3) our thoughts: it grieveth us  even
to look upon him: for his life is not like the life of others; his ways are
of another fashion.(4) We are counted by him as triflers,(5) he
withdraweth himself from our ways as from filthiness; he commendeth
greatly(6) the latter end of the just, and boasteth that he has God for his
Father. Let us see, therefore, if his words be true; let us prove what
end(7) he shall have let us examine him with rebukes and torments that we
may know his meekness,(8) and prove his patience; let us condemn him to a
shameful death. Such things have they imagined, and have gone astray. For
their own folly hath blinded them, and they do not understand the
mysteries(9) of God." Does he not describe that impious design entered into
by the wicked against God, so that he clearly appears to have been present?
But from Solomon, who foretold these things, to the time of their
accomplishment, ten hundred and ten years intervened. We feign nothing; we
add nothing. They who performed the actions had these accounts; they,
against whom these things were spoken, read them. But even now the
inheritors of their name and guilt have these accounts, and in their daily
readings re-echo their own condemnation as foretold by the voice of the
prophets; nor do they ever admit them into their heart, which is also
itself a part of their condemnation. The Jews, therefore, being often
reproved by Christ, who upbraided them with their sins and iniquities, and
being almost deserted by the people, were stirred up to put Him to death.

   Now His humility emboldened them to this deed. For when they read with
what great power and glory the Son of God was about to descend from heaven,
but on the other hand saw Jesus humble, peaceful, of low condition,(10)
without comeliness, they did not believe that He was the Son of God, being
ignorant that two advents on His part were foretold by the prophets: the
first, obscure in humility of the flesh; the other, manifest in the power
of His majesty. Of the first David thus speaks in the seventy-first
Psalm:(11) "He shall descend as rain upon a fleece; and in His days shall
righteousness spring forth, and abundance of peace, as long as the moon is
lifted up." For as rain, if it descends upon a fleece, cannot be perceived,
because it makes no sound; so he said that Christ would come to the earth
without exciting the notice(12) of any, that He might teach righteousness
and peace. Isaiah also thus spoke:(13) "Lord, who bath believed our report?
and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We made proclamation(14)
before Him as children, and as a root in a thirsty land: He has no form nor
glory; and we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness. But His form was
without honour, and  defective beyond the rest of men. He is a man
acquainted(15) with grief, and knowing how to endure infirmity, because He
turned(16) His face away from us; and He was not esteemed. He carries our
sins, and He endures pain for us: and we thought that He Himself(1) was in
pain and grief, and vexation. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He
was bruised(2) for our offences; the chastisement(3) of our peace was upon
Him, by His bruises(4) we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray,
and God hath delivered Him up for our sins." And in the same manner the
Sibyl spoke: "Though an object of pity, dishonoured, without form, He will
give hope to those who are objects of pity." On account of this humility
they did not recognise their God, and entered into the detestable design of
depriving Him of life, who had come to give them life.

CHAP. XVII.--OF THE SUPERSTITIONS OF THE JEWS, AND THEIR HATRED AGAINST
JESUS.

   But they alleged other causes for their anger and envy, which they bore
shut up s within in their hearts--namely, that He destroyed the
obligation(6) of the law given by Moses; that is, that He did not rest(7)
on the Sabbath, but laboured for the good s of men; that He abolished
circumcision; that He took away the necessity of abstaining from the flesh
of swine;(9)--in which things the mysteries of the Jewish religion consist.
On this account, therefore, the rest of the people, who had not yet
withdrawn(10) to Christ, were incited by the priests to regard Him as
impious, because He destroyed the obligation of the law of God, though He
did this not by His own judgment, but according to the will of God, and
after the predictions of the prophets. For Micah announced that He would
give a new law, in these terms:(11) "The law shall go forth of Zion, and
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among many people,
and rebuke strong nations."(12) For the former law, which was given by
Moses, was not given on Mount Zion, but on Mount Horeb;(13) and the Sibyl
shows that it would come to pass that this law would be destroyed by the
Son of God:--

"But when all these things which I told you shall be accomplished, thenall
the law is fulfilled with respect to Him."

But even Moses himself, by whom the law was given which they so tenaciously
maintain, though they have fallen away from God, and have not acknowledged
God, had foretold that it would come to pass that a very great prophet
would be sent by God, who should be above the law, and be a bearer of the
will of God to men. In Deuteronomy he thus left it written:(14) "And the
Lord said unto me, I will raise them up a Prophet from among their
brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my word in His month, and He shall
speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And whosoever will not
hearken to those things which that Prophet shall speak in my name, I will
require(15) it of him." The Lord evidently announced by the law-giver
himself that He was about to send His own Son-that is, a law alive, anti
present(16) in person, and destroy that old law given by a mortal,(17) that
by Him who was eternal He might ratify afresh a law which was eternal.

   In like manner, Isaiah(18) thus prophesied concerning the abolition of
circumcision: "Thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah who dwell at
Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord your God, and take away the foreskins of
your heart, lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can
quench it." Also Moses himself says:(19) "In the last days the Lord shall
circumcise thine heart to love the Lord thy God." Also Jesus(20) the son of
Nun, his successor, said: "And the Lord said unto Jesus, Make thee knives
of flint very sharp, and sit and circumcise the children of Israel the
second time." He said that this second circumcision would be not of the
flesh, as the first was, which the Jews practise even now, but of the heart
and spirit, which was delivered by Christ, who was the true Jesus. For the
prophet does not say, "And the Lord said unto me," but "unto Jesus," that
he might show that God was not speaking of him, but of Christ, to whom God
was then speaking. For that Jesus represented(21) Christ: for when he was
at first called Auses,(22) Moses, foreseeing the future, ordered that he
should be called Jesus; that since he had been chosen as the leader of the
warfare against Amalek, who was the enemy of the children of Israel, he
might both subdue the adversary by the emblem(1) of the name, and lead the
people into the land of promise. And for this reason he was also successor
to Moses, to show that the new law given by Christ Jesus was about to
succeed to the old law which was given by Moses. For that circumcision of
the flesh is plainly irrational; since, if God had so willed it, He might
so have formed man from the beginning, that he should be without a
foreskin. But it was a figure of this second circumcision, signifying that
the breast is to be laid bare; that is, that we ought to live with an open
and simple heart, since that part of the body which is circumcised has a
kind of resemblance to the heart, and is to be treated with reverence. On
this  account God ordered that it should be laid bare, that by this
argument He might admonish us not to have our breast hidden(2) in
obscurity; that is, not to veil any shameful deed within the secrets of
conscience. This is the circumcision of the heart of which the prophets
speak, which God transferred from the mortal flesh to the soul, which alone
is about to endure. For being desirous of promoting our life and salvation
in accordance with His own goodness, in that circumcision He hath set
before us repentance, that if we lay open our hearts,--that is if we
confess our sins and make satisfaction to God,--we shall obtain pardon,
which is denied to those who are obstinate and conceal their faults, by Him
who regards not the outward appearance, as man does, but the innermost
secrets of the heart.(3)

   The forbidding of the flesh of swine also has the same intention; for
when God commanded them to abstain from this, He willed that this should be
especially understood, that they should abstain from sins and impurities.
For this animal is filthy and unclean,(4) and never looks up to heaven,(5)
but prostrates itself to the earth with its whole body and face: it is
always the slave of its appetite and food; nor during its life can it
afford any other service, as the other animals do, which either afford a
vehicle for riding,(6) or aid in the cultivation of the fields, or draw
waggons by their neck, or carry burthens on their back, or furnish a
covering with their skins,(7) or abound with a supply of milk, or keep
watch for guarding our houses. Therefore He forbade them to use the flesh
of the pig for food, that is, not to imitate the life of swine, which are
nourished only for death; lest, by devoting themselves to their appetite
and pleasures, they should be useless for working righteousness, and should
be visited with death. Also that they should not immerse themselves in foul
lusts, as the sow, which wallows in the mire;(8) of that they do not serve
earthly images, and thus defile themselves with mud: for they do bedaub
themselves with mud who worship gods, that is, who worship mud and earth.
Thus all the precepts of the Jewish law have for their object the setting
forth of righteousness, since they are given in a mysterious(9) manner,
that under the figure of carnal things those which are spiritual might be
known.

CHAP. XVIII.--OF THE LORD'S PASSION, AND THAT IT WAS FORETOLD.

   When, therefore, Christ fulfilled these things which God would have
done, and which He foretold many ages before by His prophets, incited by
these things, and ignorant of the sacred Scriptures, they conspired
together to condemn their God. And though He knew that this would come to
pass, and repeatedly(10) said that He must suffer and be put to death for
the salvation of many, nevertheless He withdrew Himself with His disciples,
not that He might avoid that which it was necessary for Him to undergo and
endure, but that He might show what ought to take place in every
persecution, that no one should appear to have fallen into it through his
own fault: and He announced that it would come to pass that He should be
betrayed by one of them. And thus Judas, induced by a bribe, delivered up
to the Jews the Son of God. But they took and brought Him before Pontius
Pilate, who at that time was administering the province of Syria as
governor,(11) and demanded that He should be crucified, though they laid
nothing else to His charge except that He said that He was the Son of God,
the King of the Jews; also His own saying,(12) "Destroy this temple, which
was forty-six years in building, and in three days I will raise it up again
without hands," --signifying that His passion would shortly take place, and
that He, having been put to death by the Jews, would rise again on the
third day. For He Himself was the true temple of God. They inveighed
against these expressions of His, as ill-omened and impious. And when
Pilate had heard these things, and He said nothing in His own defence, he
gave sentence that there appeared nothing deserving of condemnation in Him.
But those most unjust accusers, together with the people whom they had
stirred up, began to cry out, and with loud voices to demand His
crucifixion.

   Then Pontius(1) was overpowered both by their outcries, and by the
instigation of Herod the tetrarch,(2) who feared lest he should be deposed
from his sovereignty. He did not, however, himself pass sentence, but
delivered Him up to the Jews, that they themselves might judge Him
according to their law.(3) Therefore they led Him away when He had been
scourged with rods, and before they crucified Him they mocked Him; for they
put upon Him a scarlet(4) robe, and a crown of thorns, and saluted Him as
King, and gave Him gall for food, and mingled for Him vinegar to drink.
After these things they spat upon His face, and struck Him with the palms
of their hands; and when the executioners s themselves contended about His
garments, they cast lots among themselves for His tunic and mantle.(6) And
while all these things were doing, He uttered no voice from His mouth, as
though He were dumb. Then they lifted Him up in the midst between two
malefactors, who had been condemned for robbery, and fixed Him to the
cross. What can I here deplore in so great a crime? or in what words can I
lament such great wickedness? For we are not relating the crucifixion of
Gavius,(7) which Marcus Tullius followed up with all the spirit and
strength of his eloquence, pouring forth as it were the fountains of all
his genius, proclaiming that it was an unworthy deed that a Roman citizen
should be crucified in violation of all laws. And although He was innocent,
and undeserving of that punishment, yet He was put to death, and that, too,
by an impious man, who was ignorant of justice. What shall I say respecting
the indignity of this cross, on which the Son of God was suspended and
nailed?(8) Who will be found so eloquent, and supplied with so great an
abundance of deeds and words, what speech flowing with such copious
exuberance,(9) as to lament in a befitting manner that cross, which the
world itself, and all the elements of the world, bewailed?

   But that these things were thus about to happen, was announced both by
the utterances of the prophets and by the predictions of the Sibyls. In
Isaiah it is found thus written:(10) "I am not rebellious, nor do I oppose:
I gave my back to the scourge, and my cheeks to the hand:(11) I turned not
away my face from the foulness of spitting." In like manner David, in the
thirty-fourth Psalm:(12) "The abjects(13) were gathered together against
me,(14) and they knew me not:(15) they were dispersed, nor did they feel
remorse; they tempted me, and greatly(16) derided me; and they gnashed upon
me with their teeth." The Sibyl also showed that the same things would
happen:--

"He shall afterwards come into the hands of the unjust and the
faithless;and they shall inflict on God blows with impure hands, and
withpolluted mouths they shall send forth poisonous spittle; and He
shallthen absolutely(17) give His holy back to stripes."

Likewise respecting His silence, which He perseveringly maintained even to
His death, Isaiah thus spoke again:(18) "He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter; and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so He opened not His
mouth." And the above-mentioned Sibyl said:--

"And being beaten, He shall be silent, lest any one should know what
theWord is, or whence it came, that it may speak with mortals; and tieshall
wear the crown of thorns."

But respecting the food and the drink which they offered to Him before they
fastened Him to the cross, David thus speaks in the sixty-eighth Psalm:(19)
"And they gave me gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar
to drink."  The Sibyl foretold that this also would happen:--

"They gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst vinegar; this
inhospitable table they will show."

And another Sibyl rebukes the land of Judges in these verses:--

"For you, entertaining hurtful thoughts, did not recognise your
Godsporting(1) with mortal thoughts; but crowned Him with a crown ofthorns,
and mingled dreadful gall."

Now, that it would come to pass that the Jews would lay hands upon their
God, and put Him to death, these testimonies of the prophets foretold. In
Esdras it is thus written:(2) "And Ezra said to the people, This passover
is our Saviour and our refuge. Consider and let it come into your heart,
that we have to abase Him in a figure; and after these things we will hope
in Him, lest this place be deserted for ever, saith the Lord God of hosts.
If you will not believe Him, nor hear His announcement, ye shall be a
derision among the nations." From which it appears that the Jews had no
other hope, unless they purified themselves from blood, and put their hopes
in that very person whom they denied.(3) Isaiah also points out their deed,
and says:(4) "In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. Who shall
declare His generation? for His life shall be taken away from the earth;
from the transgressions of my people He was led away to death. And I will
give Him the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His death, because He
did no wickedness, nor spoke guile with His mouth. Wherefore He shall
obtain s many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong; because He was
delivered up to death, and was reckoned among the transgressors; and He
bore the sins of many, and was delivered up on account of their
transgressions." David also, in the ninety-third Psalm:(6) "They will hunt
after the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood; and the
Lord is become my refuge." Also Jeremiah:(7) "Lord, declare it unto me, and
I shall know. Then I saw their devices; I was led as an innocent(8) lamb to
the sacrifice;(9) they meditated a plan against me, saying, Come, let us
send wood into his bread,(10) and let us sweep away his life from the
earth, and his name shall no more be remembered." Now the wood(11)
signifies the cross, and the bread His body; for He Himself is the food and
the life of all who believe in the flesh which He bare, and on the cross
upon which He was suspended.

   Respecting this, however, Moses himself more plainly spoke to this
effect, in Deuteronomy:(12) "And Thy life shalL hang(13) before Thine eyes;
and Thou shall fear day and night, and shalt have no assurance of Thy
life." And the same again in Numbers:(14) "God is not in doubt as a suffer
threats(15) as the son of man, nor does He man." Zechariah also thus
wrote:(16) "And they shall look on me, whom they pierced." Also David in
the twenty-first Psalm:(17) "They pierced my hands and my feet; they
numbered all my bones; they themselves looked and stared upon me; they
divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they did cast lots." It
is evident that the prophet did not speak these things concerning himself.
For he was a king, and never endured these sufferings; but the Spirit of
God, who was about to suffer these things, after ten hundred and fifty
years, spoke by him. For this is the number of years from the reign of
David to the crucifixion of Christ. But Solomon also, his son, who built
Jerusalem, prophesied that this very city would perish in revenge for the
sacred cross:(18) "But if ye turn away from me, saith the Lord, and will
not keep my truth, I will drive Israel from the land which I have given
them; and this house which I have built for them in my name, I will cast it
out from all:(19) and lsrael shall be for perdition(20) and a reproach to
the people; and this house shall be desolate, and every one that shall pass
by it shall be astonished, and shall say, Why hath God done these evils to
this land and to this house? And they shall say, Because they forsook the
Lord their God, and persecuted their King most beloved by God, and
crucified Him with great degradation,(21) therefore hath God brought upon
them these evils."

CHAP. XIX.--OF THE DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS; AND THE
PREDICTIONS OF THESE EVENTS.

   What more can now be said respecting the crime of the Jews, than that
they were then blinded and seized with incurable madness, who read these
things daily, and yet neither understood them, nor were able to be on their
guard so as not to do them? Therefore, being lifted up and nailed to the
cross, He cried to the Lord with a loud voice, and of His own accord gave
up His spirit. And at the same hour there was an earthquake; and the veil
of the temple, which separated the two tabernacles, was rent into two
parts; and the sun suddenly withdrew its light, and there was darkness from
the sixth(1) even to the ninth hour. Of which event the prophet Amos
testifies:(2) "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that
the sun shall go down at noon, and the daylight shall be darkened; and I
will turn your feasts into mourning, and your songs into lamentation." Also
Jeremiah:(3) "She who brings forth is affrighted, and vexed in spirit; her
sun is gone down while it was yet mid-day; she hath been ashamed and
confounded;(4) and the residue of them will I give to the sword in the
sight of their enemies." And the Sibyl:--

"And the veil of the temple shall be rent, and at midday there shall be
dark vast night for three hours,"

When these things were done, even by the heavenly prodigies, they were not
able to understand their crime.

   But since He had foretold that on the third day He should rise again
from the dead, fearing lest, the body having been stolen by the disciples,
and removed, all should believe that He had risen, and there should be a
much greater disturbance among the people, they took Him down from the
cross, and having shut Him up in a tomb, they securely surrounded it with a
guard of soldiers. But on the third day, before light, there was an
earthquake, and the sepulchre was suddenly opened; and the guard, who were
astonished and stupefied with fear, seeing nothing, He came forth uninjured
and alive from the sepulchre, and went into Galilee to seek His disciples:
but nothing was found in the sepulchre except the grave-clothes in which
they haft enclosed and wrapt His body. Now, that He would not remain in
bell,(5) but rise again on the third day, had been foretold by the
prophets. David says, in the fifteenth Psalm:(6) "Thou wilt not leave my
soul in hell; neither wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption."
Also in the third Psalm:(7) "I laid me down to sleep, and took my rest, and
rose again, for the Lord sustained me." Hosea also, the first of the twelve
prophets, testified of His resurrection:(8) "This my Son is wise, therefore
He will not remain in the anguish of His sons: and I will redeem Him from
the power(9) of the grave. Where is thy judgment, O death? or where is thy
sting?" The same also in another place:(10) "After two days, He will revive
us in the third day." And therefore the Sibyl said, that after three days'
sleep he would put an end to death:--

"And after sleeping three days, He shall put an end to the fate of
death;and then, releasing Himself from the dead, He shall come to
light,first showing to the called ones the beginning of the resurrection."

For He gained life for us by overcoming death. No hope, therefore, of
gaining immortality is given to than, unless he shall believe on Him, and
shall take up that cross to be borne and endured.

CHAP. XX.--OF THE DEPARTURE OF JESUS INTO GALILEE AFTER HIS RESURRECTION;
AND OF THE TWO TESTAMENTS, THE OLD AND THE NEW.

   Therefore He went into Galilee, for He was unwilling to show Himself to
the Jews, lest He should lead them to repentance, and restore them from
their impiety to a sound mind.(11) And there He opened to His disciples
again assembled the writings of Holy Scripture, that is, the secrets of the
prophets; which before His suffering could by no means be understood, for
they told of Him and of His passion. Therefore Moses, and the prophets also
themselves, call the law which was given to the Jews a testament: for
unless the testator shall have died, a testament cannot be confirmed; nor
can that which is written in it be known, because it is closed and sealed.
And thus, unless Christ had undergone death the testament could not have
been opened; that is, the mystery of God could not have been unveiled(12)
and understood.

   But all Scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded
the advent and passion of Christ--that is, the law and the prophets--is
called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection
are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New:
but yet they are not discordant, for the New is the fulfilling of the Old,
and in both there is the same testator, even Christ, who, having suffered
death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of the
Jews being deprived and disinherited.(1) As the prophet Jeremiah testifies
when he speaks such things:(2) "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that
I will make a new testament(3) to the house of Israel and the house of
Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the
day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarded(4) them, saith
the Lord."  Also in another place he says in like manner:(5) "I have
forsaken my house, I have given up mine heritage into the hand of its
enemies. Mine heritage is become unto me as a lion in the forest; it hath
cried out against me, therefore have I hated it." Since the inheritance is
His heavenly kingdom, it is evident that He does not say that He hates the
inheritance itself, but the heirs, who have been ungrateful towards Him,
and impious. Mine heritage, he says, is become unto me as a lion; that is,
I am become a prey and a devouring to my heirs, who have slain me as the
flock. It hath cried out against me; that is, they have pronounced against
me the sentence of death and the cross. For that which He said above, that
He would make(6) a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old
testament which was given by Moses was not perfect;(7) but that that which
was to be given by Christ would be complete. But it is plain that the house
of Judah does not signify the Jews, whom He casts off, but us, who have
been called by Him out of the Gentiles, and have by adoption succeeded to
their place, and are called sons(8) of the Jews, which the Sibyl declares
when she says:--

   "The divine race of the blessed, heavenly Jews."

But what that race was about to be, Isaiah teaches, in whose book the Most
High Father addresses His Son:(9) "I the Lord God have called Thee in
righteousness, and will hold Thine hand, and will keep Thee:(10) and I have
given Thee for covenant of my race,(11) for a light of the Gentiles to open
the eyes of the blind, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them
that sit in darkness out of the prison-house." When, therefore, we who were
in time past as it were blind, and as it were shut up in the prison of
folly, were sitting in darkness, ignorant of God and of the truth, we have
been enlightened by Him, who adopted us by His testament; and having freed
us from cruel chains, and brought us out to the light of wisdom, He
admitted us to the inheritance of His heavenly kingdom.

CHAP. XXI.--OF THE ASCENSION OF JESUS, AND THE FORETELLING OF IT; AND OF
THE PREACHING AND ACTIONS OF THE DISCIPLES.

   But when He had made arrangements with His disciples for the preaching
of the Gospel and His name, a cloud suddenly surrounded Him, and carried
Him up into heaven, on the fortieth day after His passion, as Daniel bad
shown that it would be, saying:(12) "And, behold, one like the Son of man
came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days." But the
disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the
foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine(13)
Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He
had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system(14) of their
new announcement might be founded and confirmed. But He also opened to them
all things which were about to happen, which Peter and Paul preached at
Rome; and this preaching being written for the sake of remembrance,(15)
became permanent, in which they both declared other wonderful things, and
also said that it was about to come to pass, that after a short time God
would send against them a king who would subdue(16) the Jews, and level
their cities to the ground, and besiege the people themselves, worn out
with hunger and thirst. Then it should come to pass that they should feed
on the bodies of their own children, and consume one another. Lastly, that
they should be taken captive, and come into the hands of their enemies, and
should see their wives most cruelly harassed before their eyes, their
virgins ravished and polluted, their sons torn in pieces, their little ones
dashed to the ground; and lastly, everything laid waste with fire and
sword, the captives banished for ever from their own lands, because they
had exulted over the well-beloved and most approved Son of God. And so,
after their decease, when Nero had put them to death, Vespasian destroyed
the name and nation of the Jews, and did all things which they had foretold
as about to come to pass.

CHAP. XXII.--ARGUMENTS OF UNBELIEVERS AGAINST THE INCARNATION OF JESUS.

   I have now confirmed, as I imagine, the things which are thought false
and incredible by those who are not instructed in the true knowledge of
heavenly learning. But, however, that we may refute those also who are too
wise, not without  injury to themselves and who detract from the credit due
to divine things, let us disprove their error, that they may at length
perceive that the fact ought to have been as we show that it actually was.
And although with good judges either testimonies are of sufficient weight
without arguments, or arguments without testimonies, we, however, are not
content with the one or the other, since we are supplied with both, that we
may not leave room for any one of depraved ingenuity either to
misunderstand or to dispute on the opposite side. They say that it was
impossible for anything to be withdrawn(1) from an immortal nature. They
say, in short, that it was unworthy of God to be willing to become man, and
to burthen Himself with the infirmity of flesh; to become subject of His
own accord to sufferings, to pain, and death:as though it had not been easy
for Him to show Himself to men without(2) the weakness incident  to a body,
and to teach them righteousness (if He so wished) with greater authority,
as of one who acknowledged(3) Himself to be God. For in that case all would
have obeyed the heavenly precepts, if the influence and power of God
enjoining them had been united with them. Why, then (they say), did He not
come as God to teach men? Why did He render Himself so humble and weak,
that it was possible for Him both to be despised by men and to be visited
with punishment? why did He suffer violence from those who are weak and
mortal? why did He not repel by strength, or avoid by His divine
knowledge,(4) the hands of men? why did He not at least in His very death
reveal His majesty? but He was led as one without strength to trial, was
condemned as one who was guilty, was put to death as one who was mortal. I
will carefully refute these things, nor will I permit any one to be in
error. For these things were done by a great and wonderful plan; and he who
shall  understand this, will not only cease to wonder that God was tortured
by men, but also will easily see that it could not have been believed that
he was God if those very things which he censures had not been done.

CHAP. XXIII.--OF GIVING PRECEPTS, AND ACTING.

   If any one gives to men precepts for living, and moulds the characters
of others, I ask whether he is bound himself to practise the things which
he enjoins, or is not bound. If he shall not do so, his precepts are
annulled. For if the things which are enjoined are good, if they place the
life of men in the best condition, the instructor ought not to separate
himself from the number and assemblage of men among whom he acts; and he
ought himself to live in the same manner in which he teaches that men ought
to live, lest, by living in another way, he himself should disparage(5) his
own precepts, and make his instruction of less value, if in reality he
should relax the obligations of that which he endeavours to establish by
his words. For every one, when he hears another giving precepts, is
unwilling that the necessity of obeying should be imposed upon him, as
though the right of liberty were taken from him. Therefore he answers his
teacher in this manner: I am not able to do the things which you command,
for they are impossible. For yon forbid me to be angry, you forbid me to
covet, you forbid me to be excited by desire, you forbid me to fear pain or
death; but this is so contrary to nature, that all animals are subject to
these affections. Or if you are so entirely of opinion that it is possible
to resist nature, do you yourself practise the things which you enjoin,
that I may know that they are possible? But since you yourself do not
practise them, what arrogance is it, to wish to impose upon a free man laws
which you yourself do not obey! You who teach, first learn; and before you
correct the character of others, correct your own. Who could deny the
justice of this answer? Nay! a teacher of this kind will fall into
contempt, and will in his turn be mocked, because he also will appear to
mock others.

   What, therefore, will that instructor do, if these things shall be
objected to him? how will he deprive the self-willed(6) of an excuse,
unless he teach them by deeds before their eyes(7) that he teaches things
which are possible? Whence it comes to pass, that no one obeys the precepts
of the philosophers.(8) For men prefer examples rather than words, because
it is easy to speak, but difficult to accomplish.(9) Would to heaven that
there were as many who acted well as there are who speak well! But they who
give precepts, without carrying them out into action, are distrusted;(1)
and if they shall be men, will be despised as inconsistent:(2) if it shall
be God, He will be met with the excuse of the frailty of man's nature. It
remains that words should be confirmed by deeds, which the philosophers are
unable to do. Therefore, since the instructors themselves are overcome by
the affections which they say that it is our duty to overcome, they are
able to train no one to virtue, which they falsely proclaim;(3) and for
this cause they imagine that no perfect wise man has as vet existed, that
is, in whom the greatest virtue and perfect justice were in harmony with
the greatest learning and knowledge. And this indeed was true. For no one
since the creation of the world has been such, except Christ, who both
delivered wisdom by His word, and confirmed His teaching by presenting
virtue to the eyes of men.(4)

CHAP. XXIV.--THE OVERTHROWING OF THE ARGUMENTS ABOVE URGED BY WAY OF
OBJECTION.

   Come, let us now consider whether a teacher sent from heaven can fail
to be perfect. I do not as yet speak of Him whom they deny to have come
from God. Let us suppose that some one were to be sent from heaven to
instruct the life of men in the first principles of virtue, and to form
them to righteousness. No one can doubt but that this teacher, who is sent
from heaven, would be as perfect in the knowledge of all things as in
virtue, lest there should be no difference between a heavenly and an
earthly teacher. For in the case of a man his instruction can by no means
be from within and of himself.(5) For the mind, shut in by earthly organs,
and hindered by a corrupt(6) body, of itself can neither comprehend nor
receive the  truth, unless it is taught from another source.(7) And if it
had this power in the greatest degree, yet it would be unable to attain to
the highest virtue, and to resist all vices, the materials of  which are
contained in our bodily(8) organs.  Hence it comes to pass, that an earthly
teacher cannot be perfect. But a teacher from heaven,  to whom His divine
nature gives knowledge, and His immortality gives virtue, must of necessity
in His teaching also, as in other things, be perfect and complete. But this
cannot by any means happen, unless He should take to Himself a mortal body.
And the reason why it cannot happen is manifest. For if He should come to
men as God, not to mention that mortal eyes cannot look upon and endure the
glory of His majesty in His own person, assuredly God will not be able to
teach virtue; for, inasmuch as He is without a body, He will not practise
the things which He will teach, and through this His teaching will not be
perfect. Otherwise, if it is the greatest virtue patiently to endure pain
for the sake of righteousness and duty, if it is virtue not to fear death
itself when threatened, and when inflicted to undergo it with fortitude; it
follows that the perfect teacher ought both to teach these things by
precept, and to confirm them by practice. For he who gives precepts  for
the life, ought to remove every method(9) of excuse, that he may impose
upon men the necessity of obedience, not by any constraint, but by a sense
of shame, and yet may leave them liberty, that a reward may be appointed
for those who obey, because it was in their power not to obey if they so
wished; and a punishment for those who do not obey, because it was in their
power to obey if they so wished. How then can excuse be removed, unless the
teacher should practise what he teaches, and as it were go before(10) and
hold out his hand to one who is about to follow? But how can one practise
what he teaches, unless he is like him whom he teaches? For if he be
subject to no passion, a man may thus answer him who is the teacher: It is
my wish not to sin, but I am overpowered; for I am clothed with frail and
weak flesh: it is this which covets, which is angry, which fears pain and
death. And thus I am led on against my will;(11) and I sin, not because it
is my wish, but because I am compelled. I myself perceive that I sin; but
the necessity imposed by my frailty, which I am unable to resist, impels
me. What will that teacher of righteousness say in reply to these things?
How will he refute and convict a man who shall allege the frailty of the
flesh as an excuse for his faults, unless he himself also shall be clothed
with flesh, so that he may show that even the flesh is capable of virtue?
For obstinacy cannot be refuted except by example. For the things which you
teach cannot have any weight unless you shall be the first to practise
them; because the nature of men is inclined to faults, and wishes to sin
not only with indulgence, but also with a reasonable plea.(12) It is
befitting that a master and teacher of virtue should most closely resemble
man, that by overpowering sin he may teach man that sin may be overpowered
by him. But if he is immortal, he can by no means propose an example to
man. For there will stand forth some one persevering in his opinion, and
will say: You indeed do not sin, because you are free from this body; you
do not covet, because nothing is needed by an immortal; but I have need of
many things for the support of this life. You do not fear death, because it
can have no power against you. You despise pain, because you can suffer no
violence. But I, a mortal, fear both, because they bring upon me the
severest tortures, which the weakness of the flesh cannot endure. A teacher
of virtue therefore ought to have taken away this excuse from men, that no
one may ascribe it to necessity that he sins, rather than to his own fault.
Therefore, that a teacher may be perfect, no objection ought to be brought
forward by him who is to be taught, so that if he should happen to say, You
enjoin impossibilities; the teacher may answer, See, I myself do them. But
I am clothed with flesh, and it is the property of flesh to sin.(1) I too
bear the same flesh, and yet sin does not bear rule in me. It is difficult
for me to despise riches, because otherwise I am unable to live in this
body. See, I too have a body, and yet I contend against every desire. I am
not able to bear pain or death for righteousness, because I am frail. See,
pain and death have power over me also; and I overcome those very things
which you fear, that I may make you victorious over pain and death. I go
before you through those things which you allege  that it is impossible to
endure: if you are not able to follow me giving directions, follow me going
before you. In this way all excuse is taken away, and you must confess that
man is unjust through his own fault, since he does not follow a teacher of
virtue, who is at the same time a guide. You see, therefore, how much  more
perfect is a teacher who is mortal, because he is able to be a guide to one
who is mortal,  than one who is immortal, for he is unable to teach patient
endurance who is not subject to passions. Nor, however, does this extend so
far that I prefer man to God; but to show that man cannot be a perfect
teacher unless he is also God, that he may by his heavenly authority impose
upon men the necessity of obedience; nor God, unless he is clothed with a
mortal body, that by carrying out his precepts to their completion(2) in
actions, he may bind others by the  necessity of obedience. It plainly
therefore appears, that he who is a guide of life and teacher of
righteousness must have a body, and that his teaching cannot otherwise be
full and perfect, unless it has a root and foundation, and remains firm and
fixed among men; and that he himself must undergo weakness of flesh and
body, and display in himself(3) the virtue of which he is a teacher, that
he may teach it at the same time both by words and deeds. Also, he must be
subject to death and all sufferings, since the duties of virtue are
occupied with the enduring of suffering, and the undergoing death; all
which, as I have said, a perfect teacher ought to endure, that he may teach
the possibility of their being endured.

CHAP. XXV.--OF THE ADVENT OF JESUS IN THE FLESH AND SPIRIT, THAT HE MIGHT
BE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN.

   Let men therefore learn and understand why the Most High God, when He
sent His ambassador and messenger to instruct mortals with the precepts of
His righteousness, willed that He should be clothed with mortal flesh, and
be afflicted with torture, and be sentenced to death. For since there was
no righteousness on earth, He sent a teacher, as it were a living law, to
found a new name and temple,(4) that by His words and example He might
spread throughout the earth a true and holy worship. But, however, that it
might be certain that He was sent by God, it was befitting that He should
not be born as man is born, composed of a mortal on both sides;(5) but that
it might appear that He was heavenly even in the form of man, He was born
without the office of a father. For He had a spiritual Father, God; and as
God was the Father of His spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the
mother of His body without a father. He was therefore both God and man,
being placed in the middle between God and man. From which the Greeks call
Him Mesites,(6) that He might be able to lead man to God--that is, to
immortality: for if He had been God only (as we have before said), He would
not have been able to afford to man examples of goodness; if He had been
man only, He would not have been able to compel men to righteousness,
unless there had been added an authority and virtue greater than that of
man.

   For, since man is composed of flesh and spirit, and the spirit must
earn(1) immortality by works of righteousness, the flesh, since it is
earthly, and therefore mortal, draws with itself  the spirit linked to it,
and leads it from immortality to death. Therefore the spirit, apart from
the flesh, could by no means be a guide to immortality for man, since the
flesh hinders the spirit from following God. For it is frail, and liable to
sin; but sin is the food and nourishment(2) of death. For this cause,
therefore, a mediator came--that is, God in the flesh--that the flesh might
be able to follow Him, and that He might rescue man from death, which has
dominion over the flesh. Therefore He clothed Himself with flesh, that the
desires of the flesh being subdued, He might teach that to sin was not the
result of necessity, but of man's purpose and will. For we have one great
and principal struggle to maintain with the flesh, the boundless desire; of
which press upon the soul, nor allow it to retain dominion, but make it the
slave of pleasures and sweet allurements, and visit it with everlasting
death. And that we might be able to overcome these, God has opened and
displayed to us the way of overcoming the flesh. And this perfect and
absolutely complete(3) virtue bestows on those who conquer, the crown and
reward of immortality.

CHAP. XXVI.--OF THE CROSS, AND OTHER TORTURES OF JESUS, AND OF THE FIGURE
OF THE LAMB UNDER THE LAW.

   I have spoken of humiliation, and frailty, and suffering--why God
thought fit to undergo them. Now an account must be taken of the cross
itself, and its meaning must be related. What the Most High Father arranged
from the beginning, and how He ordained all things which were accomplished,
not only the foretelling by the prophets, which preceded and was proved
true(4) in Christ, but also the manner of His suffering itself teaches. For
whatever sufferings He underwent were not without meaning;(5) but they had
a figurative meaning(6) and great significance, as had also those divine
works which  He performed, the strength and power of which had some weight
indeed for the present, but also declared something for the future.
Heavenly influence opened the eyes of the blind, and gave light to those
who did not see; and by this deed He signified that it would come to pass
that, turning to the nations which were ignorant of God, He might enlighten
the breasts of the foolish with the light of wisdom, and open the eyes of
their understanding to the contemplation of the truth. For they are truly
blind who, not seeing heavenly things, and surrounded with the darkness of
ignorance, worship earthly and frail things. He opened the ears of the
deaf. It is plain that this divine power did not limit its  exercise to
this point;(7) but He declared that it would shortly come to pass, that
they who were  destitute of the truth would both hear and understand the
divine words of God. For you may truly call those deaf who do not hear the
things  which are heavenly and true, and worthy of  being performed. He
loosed the tongues of the  dumb, so that they spake plainly.(8) A power
worthy of admiration,(9) even when it was in operation: but there was
contained in this display(10) of power another meaning, which showed that
it would shortly come to pass that those who were lately ignorant of
heavenly things, having received the instruction of wisdom, might speak
respecting God and the truth. For he who is ignorant of the divine nature,
he truly is speechless and dumb, although he is the most eloquent of all
men. For when the tongue has begun to speak truth--that is, to set forth
the excellency and majesty of the one God--then only does it discharge the
office of its nature;  but as long as it speaks false things it is not
rightly employed:(11) and therefore he must necessarily be speechless who
cannot utter divine things. He also renewed the feet of the lame to the
office of walking,--a strength of divine work worthy of praise; but the
figure implied this, that the errors of a worldly and wandering life being
restrained, the path of truth was opened by which men might walk to attain
the favour of God. For He is truly to be considered lame, who, being
enwrapped in the gloom  and darkness of folly, and ignorant in what
direction to go, with feet liable to stumble and  fall, walks in the way of
death.

   Likewise He cleansed the stains and blemishes of defiled bodies,--no
slight exercise of immortal power; but this strength prefigured that by the
instruction of righteousness His doctrine was about to purify those defiled
by the stains of sins and the blemishes of vices. For they ought truly to
be accounted as leprous and unclean,(12) whom either boundless lusts compel
to crimes, or insatiable pleasures to disgraceful deeds, and affect with an
everlasting stain those who are branded with the marks of dishonourable
actions. He raised the bodies of the dead as they lay prostrate; and
calling them aloud by their names, He brought them back from death. What is
more suitable to God, what more worthy of the wonder of all ages, than to
have recalled(1) the life which has run its course, to have added times to
the completed times of men, to have revealed the secrets of death? But this
unspeakable power was the image of a greater energy, which showed that His
teaching was about to have such might, that the nations throughout the
world, which were estranged from God and subject to death, being animated
by the knowledge of the true light, might arrive at the rewards of
immortality. For you may rightly deem those to be dead, who, not knowing
God the giver of life, and depressing their souls from heaven to earth, run
into the snares of eternal death. The actions, therefore, which He then
performed for the present, were representations of future things; the
things which He displayed in injured and diseased bodies were figures(2) of
spiritual things, that at present He might display to us the works of an
energy which was not of earth, and for the future might show the power of
His heavenly majesty.(3)

   Therefore, as His works had a signification also of greater power, so
also His passion did not go before us as simple, or superfluous, or by
chance. But as those things which He did signified the great efficacy and
power of His teaching, so those things which He suffered announced that
wisdom would be held in hatred. For the vinegar which they gave Him to
drink, and the gall which they gave Him to eat, held forth hardships and
severities(4) in this life to the followers of truth. And although His
passion, which was harsh and severe in itself, gave to us a sample of the
future torments which virtue itself proposes to those who linger in this
world, yet drink and food of this kind, coming into the mouth of our
teacher, afforded us an example of pressures, and labours, and miseries.
All which things must be undergone and suffered by those who follow the
truth; since the truth is bitter, and detested by all who, being destitute
of virtue, give up their life to deadly pleasures. For the placing of a
crown of thorns upon His head, declared that it would come to pass that He
would gather to Himself a holy people from those who were guilty. For
people standing around in a circle are called a corona.(5) But we, who
before that we knew God were unjust, were thorns--that is, evil and guilty,
not knowing what was good; and estranged from the conception and the works
of righteousness, polluted all things with wickedness and lust. Being
taken, therefore, from briars and thorns, we surround the sacred head of
God; for, being called by Himself, and spread around Him, we stand beside
God, who is our Master and Teacher, and crown Him King of the world, and
Lord of all the living.

   But with reference to the cross, it has great force and meaning, which
I will now endeavour to show. For God (as I have before explained), when He
had determined to set man free, sent as His ambassador to the earth a
teacher of virtue, who might both by salutary precepts train men to
innocence, and by works and deeds before their eyes(6) might open the way
of righteousness, by walking in which, and following his teacher, man might
attain to eternal life. He therefore assumed a body, and was clothed in a
garment of flesh, that He might hold out to man, for whose instruction He
had come, examples of virtue and incitements to its practice. But when He
had afforded an example of righteousness in all the duties of life, in
order that He might teach man also the patient endurance of pain and
contempt of death, by which virtue is rendered perfect and complete, He
came into the hands of an impious nation, when, by the knowledge of the
future which He had, He might have avoided them, and by the same power by
which He did wonderful works He might have repelled them. Therefore He
endured tortures, and stripes, and thorns. At last He did not refuse even
to undergo death, that under His guidance man might triumph over death,
subdued and bound in chains with all its terrors. But the reason why the
Most High Father chose that kind of death in preference to others, with
which He should permit Him to be visited, is this. For some one may
perchance say: Why, if He was God, and chose to die, did He not at least
suffer by some honourable kind of death? why was it by the cross
especially? why by an infamous kind of punishment, which may appear
unworthy even of a man if he is free,(7) although guilty? First of all,
because He, who had come in humility that He might bring assistance to the
humble and men of low degree, and might hold out to all the hope of safety,
was to suffer by that kind of punishment by which the humble and low
usually suffer, that there might be no one at all who might not be able to
imitate Him. In the next place, it was in order that His body might be kept
unmutilated,(1) since He must rise again from the dead on the third day.

   Nor ought any one to be ignorant of this, that He Himself, speaking
before of His passion, also made it known that He had the power, when He
willed it, of laying down His life and of taking it again. Therefore,
because He had laid down His life while fastened to the cross, His
executioners did not think it necessary to break His bones (as was their
prevailing custom), but they only pierced His side. Thus His unbroken body
was taken down from the cross, and carefully enclosed in a tomb. Now all
these things were done lest His body, being injured and broken, should be
rendered unsuitable(2) for rising again. That also was a principal cause
why God chose the cross, because it was necessary that He should be lifted
up on it, and the passion of God become known to all nations. For since he
who is suspended upon a cross is both conspicuous to all and higher than
others, the cross was especially chosen, which might signify that He would
be so conspicuous, and so raised on high, that all nations from the whole
world should meet together at once to know and worship Him. Lastly, no
nation is so uncivilized, no region so remote, to which either His passion
or the height of His majesty would be unknown. Therefore in His suffering
He stretched forth His hands and measured out the world, that even then He
might show that a great multitude, collected together out of all languages
and tribes, from the rising of the sun even to his setting, was about to
come under His wings, and to receive on their foreheads that great and
lofty sign.(3) And the Jews even now exhibit a figure of this transaction
when they mark their thresholds with the blood of a lamb. For when God was
about to smite the Egyptians, to secure the Hebrews from that infliction He
had enjoined them to slay a white(4) lamb without spot, and to place  on
their thresholds a mark from its blood. And thus, when the first-born of
the Egyptians had perished in one night, the Hebrews alone were saved by
the sign of the blood: not that the blood of a sheep had such efficacy in
itself as to be the safety of men, hut it was an image of things to come.
For Christ was the white lamb without spot; that is, He was innocent, and
just, and holy, who, being slain by the same Jews, is the salvation of all
who have written on their foreheads the sign of blood--that is, of the
cross, on which He shed His blood. For the forehead is the top of the
threshold in man, and the wood sprinkled with blood is the emblem(5) of the
cross. Lastly, the slaying of the lamb by those very persons who perform it
is called the paschal feast, from the word "paschein,"(6) because it is a
figure of the passion, which God, foreknowing the future, delivered by
Moses to be celebrated by His people. But at that time the figure was
efficacious at the present for averting the danger, that it may appear what
great efficacy the truth itself is about to have for the protection of
God's people in the extreme necessity of the whole world. But in what
manner or in what region all will be safe who have marked  on the highest
part of their body this sign of the  true and divine blood,(7) I will show
in the last book.

CHAP. XXVII.--OF THE WONDERS EFFECTED BY THE POWER OF THE CROSS, AND OF
DEMONS.

   At present it is sufficient to show what great efficacy the power of
this sign has. How great a terror this sign is to the demons, he will know
who shall see how, when adjured by Christ, they flee from the bodies which
they have besieged. For as He Himself, when He was living among men, limit
to flight all the demons by His word, and restored to their former senses
the minds of men which had been excited and maddened by  their dreadful
attacks; so now His followers, in the name of their Master, and by the sign
of His passion, banish the same polluted spirits from men. And it is not
difficult to prove this. For when they sacrifice to their gods, if any one
bearing a marked forehead stands by, the sacrifices are by no means
favourable.(8)

   "Nor can the diviner, when consulted, give answers."(9)

And this has often been the cause of punishment to wicked kings. For when
some of their attendants who were of our religion(10) were standing by
their masters as they sacrificed, having the sign placed on their
foreheads, they caused the gods of their masters to flee, that they might
not be able to observe(11) future events in the entrails of the victims.
And when the soothsayers understood this, at the instigation of the same
demons to whom they had sacrificed,(1) complaining that profane men were
present at the sacrifices, they drove their princes to madness, so that
they attacked the temple of the god, and contaminated themselves by true
sacrilege, which was expiated by the severest punishments on the part of
their persecutors. Nor, however, are blind men able to understand even from
this, either that this is the true religion, which contains such great
power for overcoming, or that that is false, which is not able to hold its
ground or to come to an engagement.

   But they say that the gods do this, not through fear, but through
hatred; as though it were possible for any one to hate another, unless it
be him who injures, or has the power of injuring. Yea, truly, it would be
consistent with their majesty to visit those whom they hated with immediate
punishment,(2) rather than to flee from them. But since they can neither
approach those in whom they shall see the heavenly mark, nor injure those
whom the immortal sign(3) as an impregnable wall protects, they harass them
by men, and persecute them by the hands of others: and if they acknowledge
the existence of these demons, we have overcome; for this must necessarily
be the true religion, which both understands the nature of demons, and
understands their subtlety, and compels them, vanquished and subdued, to
yield to itself. If they deny it, they will be refuted by the testimonies
of poets and philosophers. But if they do not deny the existence and
malignity of demons, what remains except that they affirm that there is a
difference between gods and demons?(4) Let them therefore explain to us the
difference between the two kinds, that we may know what is to be worshipped
and what to be held in execration; whether they have any mutual agreement,
or are really opposed to one, another. If they are united by some
necessity, how shall we distinguish them? or how shall we unite the honour
and worship of each kind? If, on the other hand, they are enemies, how is
it that the demons do not fear the gods, or that the gods cannot put to
flight the demons? Behold, some one excited by the impulse of the demon is
out of his senses, raves, is mad: let us lead him into the temple of the
excellent and mighty Jupiter; or since Jupiter knows not how to cure men,
into the lane of AEsculapius or Apollo. Let the priest of either, in the
name of his god, command the wicked spirit to come out of the man: that can
in no way come to pass. What, then, is the power of the gods, if the demons
are not subject to their control? But, in truth, the same demons, when
adjured by the name of the true God, immediately flee. What reason is there
why they should fear Christ, but not fear Jupiter, unless that they whom
the multitude esteem to be gods are also demons? Lastly, if there should be
placed in the midst one who is evidently suffering from an attack of a
demon, and the priest of the Delphian Apollo, they will in the same manner
dread the name of God; and Apollo will as quickly depart from his priest as
the spirit of the demon from the man; and his god being adjured and put to
flight, the priest will be for ever silent.(5) Therefore the demons, whom
they acknowledge to be objects of execration, are the same as the gods to
whom they offer supplications.

   If they imagine that we are unworthy of belief, let them believe Homer,
who associated the supreme Jupiter(6) with the demons; and also other poets
and philosophers, who speak of the same beings at one time as demons, and
at another time as gods,--of which names one is true, and the other false.
For those most wicked spirits, when they are adjured, then confess that
they are demons; when they are worshipped, then falsely say that they are
gods; in order that they may lead men into errors,(7) and call them away
from the knowledge of the true God, by which alone eternal death can be
escaped. They are the same who, for the sake of overthrowing man, have
founded various systems of worship for themselves through different
regions,(8)--under false and assumed names, however, that they might
deceive. For because they were unable by themselves to aspire to divinity,
they took to themselves the names of powerful kings, under whose titles
they might claim for themselves divine honours; which error may be
dispelled, and brought to the light of truth. For if any one desires to
inquire further into the matter, let him assemble those who are skilled in
calling forth spirits from the dead. Let them call forth(9) Jupiter,
Neptune, Vulcan, Mercury, Apollo, and Saturnus the father of all. All will
answer from the lower regions; and being questioned they will speak, and
confess respecting themselves and God. After these things let them call up
Christ; He will not be present, He will not appear, for He was not more
than two days in the lower regions. What proof can be brought forward more
certain than this? I have no doubt that Trismegistus arrived at the truth
by some proof of this kind, who spoke many things(1) respecting God the Son
which are contained in the divine secrets.

CHAP. XXVIII.--OF HOPE AND TRUE RELIGION, AND OF SUPERSTITION.

   And since these things are so, as we have shown, it is plain that no
other hope of life is set before man, except that, laying aside vanities
and wretched error, he should know God,(2) and serve God; except he
renounce this temporary life, and train himself by the principles of
righteousness for the cultivation of true religion. For we are created on
this condition, that we pay just and due obedience to God who created us,
that we should know and follow Him alone. We are bound and tied to God by
this chain of piety;(3) from which religion itself received its name, not,
as Cicero explained it, from carefully gathering,(4) for in his second book
respecting the nature of the gods he thus speaks: "For not only
philosophers, but our ancestors also, separated superstition from religion.
For they who spent whole days in prayers and sacrifices, that their
children might survive(5) them, were called superstitious. But they who
handled again, and as it were carefully gathered all things which related
to the worship of the gods, were called religious from carefully
gathering,(6) as some were called elegant from choosing out, and diligent
from carefully selecting and intelligent from understanding. For in all
these words there is the same meaning of gathering which there is in the
word religious: thus it has come to pass, that in the names superstitious
and religious, the one relates to a fault, the other belongs to praise."
How senseless this interpretation is, we may know from the matter itself.
For if both religion and superstition are engaged in the worship of the
same gods, there is little or rather no difference between them. For what
cause will he allege why he should think that to pray once for the health
of sons is the part of a religious man, but to do the same ten times is the
part of a superstitious man? For if it is an excellent thing to pray once,
how much more so to do it more frequently! If it is well to do it at the
first hour, then it is well to do it throughout the day. If one victim
renders the deity propitious, it is plain that many victims must render him
more propitious, because multiplied services oblige(7) rather than offend.
For those servants do not appear to us hateful who are assiduous and
constant in their attendance, but more beloved. Why, therefore, should he
be in fault, and receive a name which implies censure,(8) who either loves
his children more, or sufficiently honours the gods; and he, on the
contrary, be praised, who loves them less? And this argument has weight
also from the contrary. For if it is wrong(9) to pray and sacrifice during
whole days, therefore it is wrong to do so once. If it is faulty frequently
to wish for the preservation of our children, therefore he also is
superstitious who conceives that wish even rarely. Or why should the name
of a fault be derived from that, than which nothing can be wished more
honourable, nothing more just? For as to his saying, that they who
diligently take in hand again the things relating to the worship of the
gods are called religious from their carefully gathering; how is it, then,
that they who do this often in a day lose the name of religious men, when
it is plain from their very assiduity that they more diligently gather
those things by which the gods are worshipped?

   What, then, is it? Truly religion is the cultivation of the truth, but
superstition of that which is false. And it makes the entire difference
what you worship, not how you worship, or what prayer you offer.(10) But
because the worshippers of the gods imagine themselves to be religious,
though they are superstitious, they are neither able to distinguish
religion from superstition, nor to express the meaning of the names. We
have said that the name of religion is derived from the bond of piety,(11)
because God has tied man to Himself, and bound him by piety;(12) for we
must serve Him as a master, and be obedient to Him as a father. And
therefore Lucretius(1) better explained this name, who says that He loosens
the knots of superstitions.(2) But they are called superstitious, not who
wish their children to survive them, for we all wish this; but either those
who reverence the surviving memory of the dead, or those who, surviving
their parents, reverenced their images at their houses as household gods.
For those who assumed to themselves new rites, that they might honour the
dead as gods, whom they supposed to be taken from men and received into
heaven, they called superstitious. But those who worshipped the public and
ancient gods(3) they named religious. From which Virgil says:(4)--

   "Superstition vain, and ignorant of ancient gods."

But since we find that the ancient gods also were consecrated in the same
manner after their death, therefore they are superstitious who worship many
and false gods. We, on the other hand, are religious, who make our
supplications to the one true God.

CHAP. XXIX.--OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AND OF THE UNION OF JESUS WITH THE
FATHER.

   Some one may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only,
we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son:
which assertion has driven many into the greatest error. For when the
things which we say seem to them probable, they consider that we fail in
this one point alone, that we confess that there is another God, and that
He is mortal. We have already spoken of His mortality: now let us teach
concerning His unity. When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we
do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each: because the
Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the
Father, since the name of Father(5) cannot be given without the Son, nor
can the Son be begotten without the Father. Since, therefore, the Father
makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit,
one substance; but the former(6) is as it were an overflowing fountain, the
latter(7) as a stream flowing forth from it: the former as the sun, the
latter as it were a ray(8) extended from the sun. And since He is both
faithful to the Most High Father, and beloved by Him, He is not separated
from Him; just as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the
ray from the sun: for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the
light of the sun is in the ray: just as the voice cannot be separated from
the mouth, nor the strength or hand from the body. When, therefore, He is
also spoken of by the prophets as the hand, and strength, and word of God,
there is plainly no separation; for the tongue, which is the minister of
speech, and the hand, in which the strength is situated, are inseparable
portions of the body.

   We may use an example more closely connected with us. When any one has
a son whom he especially loves, who is still in the house, and in the
power(9) of his father, although he concede to him the name and power of a
master, yet by the civil law the house is one, and one person is called
master. So this world(10) is the one house of God; and the Son and the
Father, who unanimously inhabit the world, are one God, for the one is as
two, and the two are as one. Nor is that wonderful, since the Son is in the
Father, for the Father loves the Son, and the Father is in the Son; for He
faithfully obeys the will of the Father, nor does He ever do nor has done
anything except what the Father either willed or commanded. Lastly, that
the Father and the Son are but one God, Isaiah showed in that passage which
we have brought forward before,(11) when he said:(12) "They shall fall down
unto Thee, and make supplication unto Thee, since God is in Thee, and there
is no other God besides Thee." And he also speaks to the same purport in
another place:(13) "Thus saith God the King of Israel, and His Redeemer,
the everlasting God; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there
is no God." When he had set forth two persons, one of God the King, that
is, Christ, and the other of God the Father, who after His passion raised
Him from the dead, as we have said(14) that the prophet Hosea showed,(15)
who said, "I will redeem Him from the power of the grave:" nevertheless,
with reference to each person, he introduced the words, "and beside me
there is no God," when he might have said "beside us;" but it was not right
that a separation of so close a relationship should be made by the use of
the plural number. For there is one God alone, free, most high, without any
origin; for He Himself is the origin of all things, and in Him at once both
the Son and all things are contained. Wherefore, since the mind and will of
the one is in the other, or rather, since there is one in both, both are
justly called one God; for whatever is in the Father(1) flows on to the
Son, and whatever is in the Son descends from the Father. Therefore that
highest and matchless God cannot be worshipped except through the Son. He
who thinks that he worships the Father only, as he does not worship the
Son, so he does not worship even the Father. But he who receives the Son,
and bears His name, he truly together with  the Son worships the Father
also, since the Son is the ambassador, and messenger, and priest of the
Most High Father. He is the door of the  greatest temple, He the way of
light, He the guide  to salvation, He the gate of life.

CHAP. XXX.--OF AVOIDING HERESIES AND SUPERSTITIONS, AND WHAT IS THE ONLY
TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

   But since many heresies have existed, and the people of God have been
rent into divisions at the instigation of demons, the truth must be briefly
marked out by us, and placed in its own peculiar dwelling-place, that if
any one shall desire to draw the water of life, he may not be borne to
broken cisterns(2) which hold no water, but may know the abundant fountain
of God, watered by which he may enjoy perpetual light. Before all things,
it is befitting that we should know both that He Himself and His
ambassadors foretold that there must be numerous sects and heresies,(3)
which would break the unity(4) of the sacred body; and that they admonished
us to be on our guard with the greatest prudence, lest we should at any
time fall into the snares and deceits of that adversary of ours, with whom
God has willed that we should contend. Then that He gave us sure commands,
which we ought always to treasure in our minds; for many, forgetting them,
and abandoning the heavenly road, have made for themselves devious paths
amidst windings and precipices, by which they might lead away the
incautious and simple part of the people to the darkness of death: I will
explain: how this happened. There were some of our religion whose faith was
less established, or who  were less learned or less cautious, who rent the
unity and divided the Church. But they whose  faith was unsettled,(5) when
they pretended that  they knew and worshipped God aiming at the increase of
their wealth and honour, aspired to  the highest sacerdotal power; and when
overcome by others more powerful, preferred to  secede with their
supporters, than to endure those set over them, over whom they themselves
before desired to be set.(6)

   But some, not sufficiently instructed in heavenly learning, when they
were unable to reply to the accusers of the truth, who objected that it was
either impossible or inconsistent that God should be shut up in the womb of
a woman, and that the Majesty of heaven could not be reduced to such
weakness as to become an object of contempt and derision, a reproach and
mockery to men; lastly, that He should even endure tortures, and be affixed
to the accursed cross; and when they could defend and refute all these
things neither by talent nor learning, for they did not thoroughly perceive
their force and meaning, they were perverted(7) from the right path, and
corrupted the sacred writings, so that they composed for themselves a new
doctrine without any root and stability. But some, enticed by the
prediction of false prophets, concerning whom both the true prophets and he
himself had foretold, fell away from the knowledge of God, and left the
true tradition. But all of these, ensnared by frauds of demons, which they
ought to have foreseen and guarded against, by their carelessness lost the
name and worship of God. For when they are called Phrygians,(8) or
Novarians,(9) or Valentinians,(10) or Marcionites,(11) or Anthropians,(12)
or Arians,(13) or by any other name they have ceased to be Christians, who
have lost the name of Christ, and assumed human and external names.
Therefore it is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship.

   This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the faith, this is
the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which if
any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal
salvation. No one ought to flatter himself with persevering strife. For the
contest is respecting life and salvation, which, unless it is carefully and
diligently kept in view, will be lost and extinguished. But, however,
because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians
in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it
must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is
confession and repentance,(1) which treats in a wholesome manner the sins
and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable. I have related
these things in the meanwhile for the sake of admonition, that no one who
desires to avoid error may be entangled in a greater error, while he is
ignorant of the secret(2) of the truth. Afterwards, in a particular and
separate work, we will more fully and copiously(3) contend against all
divisions of falsehoods. It follows that, since we have spoken sufficiently
on the subject of true religion and wisdom, we discuss the subject of
justice in the next book.


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.