CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> <meta name="csrf-token" content="tnAgREdPVPLe5HHY6Dc3kEWLqbbi4URqcnZijUIM"> <meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow"> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="77BC9EC2757BFFD6B08AB6E9830867E2" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="8F0A17F8B7EE136DC522E193ADA44AC2" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="81E0B92D870F20A5A81469EF8E834B59" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="B3D56BE8396E01BC4B5FF1FADDBFEBAC" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="6CF243145B598540D3EBE639EC0CED69" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="5FE75E29938FE1D0DD54BAD2B25C99E4" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="A20920FE8B2693A844693CA7B2DA0341" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="443527962984ED6113E71C2E1C1E6FCC" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="58D49F2458FE6C8E642907D29D522720" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="851D73C3284A97030F2B09FDECBB3AD4" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="A656B1E6BC13BAE9D5A8773D01104738" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="61789A989A2520E21E638DD047CB7332" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="B7C6A3E0D04CC5BA0C608C9520F3D00B" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="F48263C70EDE1DC309187238F96CCE3F" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="0EE0DAA2E0981DF931A252C15FCBCA2C" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="0A07E3A82E7C0D9F9D9C345659EDB9DE" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="131BBB629297ACBB160173ED53395845" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="05555D8659A1D65F7D0E2EBA014AF981" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="78AC6224A015A61918E531E916DD44FA" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="7D606D72FCE39D630B7985DE1F0361B1" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="EF3C401C6A614F8D465A9341CBFC5090" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="EB952236EB778B9340696B13F7353A3D" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="897AEDC10475FB0295F82A4210D64590" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="F430E75F1EF116C6EFA24DE7CB3E0BC9" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="F7B3BD2FE69072BCCE4126B9CC5045CB" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="98EF95AD212ADD48C878F21B193AB8E4" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="7C25DA74C8FF5FAB142FC70204BB07A6" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="1D0E1105D459663D83517C7646FC097D" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="81D4616A768B982EB9CE2018AECAE8F6" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="8A3522EFAF15FC4FDF3B35078C516DB7" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="5D38CFA2B20914936FDB97E2B9FB39C6" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="3BC91AA62DFB93BBB6AF0F324F83B879" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="EF8A373ACF36FCC9C576F7E17BDC0ED0" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="8C25C1EC562A320C4E886F6FBD551AA0" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="4BA3D4BEDFCBDE8D855A5D67FB70ECAD" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="E10CD32B036CAFEE4E0BAF11165F6D14" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="E97FE2DDBEBEE0B3AB82D7D7499D54B0" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="895A1ECBF4F65AB03AB7449235C31DA7" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="F03D9D95ECB8E1D15F5DF466E55DC2EF" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="10D1437BF96D7A042B768C9F7731BAB4" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="7ED6C9C1C31D32B7B13F91DFB3BCB4F7" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="37AF4033FCDC8814D80B3347D8DCFD61" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="14828660C6B43D54B71B032573D1DCC6" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="968272C9D1F17F43A36BEF900C379237" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="752B68F93142732EAB7CCB7A5D776D16" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="B1A99BDD7D6156B30A78E68F365C9F83" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="6C25E85F718295037CD6F2B882C55F0C" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="5C7D771CAF9E1D204A650ACD0E1CCC27" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="0A33808F913B3177D30C05FFEA18A778" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="6A58B74EB884C7D4DFF37B085C2EF641" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="0154F0B163EC39E2C00077A555BB712F" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="78D17C560AC7BBDC345D966938135AD5" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="9DD6BD390FBB5FCE73E03376DF6923C2" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="2BBC0BE30006807810C289BDF64CFF11" /> <meta name="msvalidate.01" content="6EB50B0564B4A30C435A67724D547579" /> <meta name='ir-site-verification-token' value='529231765' /> <meta name='impact-site-verification' value='34bab047-b19c-4a2d-83b9-4e7b91954a89'> <title>The City of God (volume 1) (2024)</title><meta name="description" content="From The Art and Popular Culture EncyclopediaJump to: navigation, search{{Template}}The City of God (5th century) by St. Augustine[edit]Full textA NEW TRANSLATION.Edited by theREV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.VOL. I.THE CITY OF GOD,VOLUME I.EDINBURGH:T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.MDCCCLXXI.BR65A6+31878v. I...."><meta property="article:published_time" content="2024-11-30T13:50:47+07:00"><meta property="article:modified_time" content="2024-11-30T13:50:47+07:00"><link rel="canonical" href="https://fantasygameday.net/article/the-city-of-god-volume-1/9196"/><meta property="og:title" content="The City of God (volume 1) (2024)" /><meta property="og:description" content="From The Art and Popular Culture EncyclopediaJump to: navigation, search{{Template}}The City of God (5th century) by St. Augustine[edit]Full textA NEW TRANSLATION.Edited by theREV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.VOL. I.THE CITY OF GOD,VOLUME I.EDINBURGH:T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.MDCCCLXXI.BR65A6+31878v. I...." /><meta property="og:type" content="article" /><meta property="og:site_name" content="Fantasygameday" /><meta property="og:url" content="https://fantasygameday.net/article/the-city-of-god-volume-1/9196" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=The City of God (volume 1) (2024)" /><meta name="twitter:title" content="The City of God (volume 1) (2024)" /><meta name="twitter:description" content="From The Art and Popular Culture EncyclopediaJump to: navigation, search{{Template}}The City of God (5th century) by St. Augustine[edit]Full textA NEW TRANSLATION.Edited by theREV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.VOL. I.THE CITY OF GOD,VOLUME I.EDINBURGH:T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.MDCCCLXXI.BR65A6+31878v. I...." /><meta name="twitter:image" content="https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=The City of God (volume 1) (2024)" /><meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" /><meta name="twitter:label1" content="Written by" /><meta name="twitter:data1" content="Dean Jakubowski Ret" /><meta name="twitter:label2" content="Est. reading time" /><meta name="twitter:data2" content="3 minutes" /><script type="application/ld+json">{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"AggregateRating","name":"The City of God (volume 1) (2024)","description":"From The Art and Popular Culture EncyclopediaJump to: navigation, search{{Template}}The City of God (5th century) by St. Augustine[edit]Full textA NEW TRANSLATION.Edited by theREV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.VOL. I.THE CITY OF GOD,VOLUME I.EDINBURGH:T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.MDCCCLXXI.BR65A6+31878v. I....","image":"https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=The City of God (volume 1) (2024)","itemReviewed":{"name":"The City of God (volume 1)","@type":"MediaObject"},"ratingValue":5,"ratingCount":50}</script> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/static-res/css/newsike.css?id=4bcb1d5b227dc776bdc2"> <script src="/static-res/js/newsike.js?id=7f363cc5445f1191888e" defer></script> <link rel="preconnect" href="https://www.googletagmanager.com" /> <link rel="dns-prefetch" href="https://www.googletagmanager.com" /> <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://api.chauffeurexec.com/v1/rss"> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="57x57" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-57x57.png?id=7f2dd0f19fc9423ccae5" /> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="60x60" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-60x60.png?id=0bd5f84ce8093a295d08" /> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="72x72" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-72x72.png?id=fed97a82d99287329aa1" /> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="76x76" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-76x76.png?id=8dd2b4bd97e42ce4bb48" /> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="114x114" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-114x114.png?id=e1350d22e08f3a9a98ee" /> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="120x120" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-120x120.png?id=c8f79402edc377935736" /> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="144x144" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-144x144.png?id=e103a4bdcfdaedd66ae6" /> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="152x152" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-152x152.png?id=026787d9b01866dc2ecb" /> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/static-res/img/newsike/apple-icon-180x180.png?id=ac5d8669f9fac00716da" /> <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="192x192" href="/static-res/img/newsike/android-icon-192x192.png?id=8de180f7a159494d7e57" /> <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/static-res/img/newsike/favicon-32x32.png?id=39a6afc44c6afe88283c" /> <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="96x96" href="/static-res/img/newsike/favicon-96x96.png?id=98b4072dae559862b5fc" /> <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/static-res/img/newsike/favicon-16x16.png?id=a43a5a3c7de4d329262b" /> <link rel="manifest" href="/static-res/img/newsike/manifest.json?id=6d0a109cbc6d45f4e64b"> <meta name="msapplication-TileImage" content="/static-res/img/newsike/ms-icon-144x144.png?id=e103a4bdcfdaedd66ae6" /> <meta name="msapplication-TileColor" content="#ffffff" /> <meta name="theme-color" content="#ffffff" /> <meta http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="ie=edge">  <script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-54725HQVMF"></script> <script> window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-54725HQVMF'); </script> <script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3373908032421588" crossorigin="anonymous"></script> <script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3373908032421588" crossorigin="anonymous"></script> </head> <body> <time datetime="2024-11-30T13:50:47+07:00"></time> <div x-data="{"show":true,"style":"success","message":null}" :class="{ 'bg-indigo-500': style == 'success', 'bg-red-700': style == 'danger', 'bg-gray-500': style != 'success' && style != 'danger' }" style="display: none;" x-show="show && message" x-init=" document.addEventListener('banner-message', event => { style = event.detail.style; message = event.detail.message; show = true; }); "> <div class="max-w-screen-xl mx-auto py-2 px-3 sm:px-6 lg:px-8"> <div class="flex items-center justify-between flex-wrap"> <div class="w-0 flex-1 flex items-center min-w-0"> <span class="flex p-2 rounded-lg" :class="{ 'bg-indigo-600': style == 'success', 'bg-red-600': style == 'danger' }"> <svg x-show="style == 'success'" class="h-5 w-5 text-white" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" fill="none" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke="currentColor"> <path stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M9 12l2 2 4-4m6 2a9 9 0 11-18 0 9 9 0 0118 0z" /> </svg> <svg x-show="style == 'danger'" class="h-5 w-5 text-white" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" fill="none" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke="currentColor"> <path stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M12 8v4m0 4h.01M21 12a9 9 0 11-18 0 9 9 0 0118 0z" /> </svg> <svg x-show="style != 'success' && style != 'danger'" class="h-5 w-5 text-white" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" fill="none" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke="currentColor"> <path stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M13 16h-1v-4h-1m1-4h.01M21 12a9 9 0 11-18 0 9 9 0 0118 0z" /> </svg> </span> <p class="ml-3 font-medium text-sm text-white truncate" x-text="message"></p> </div> <div class="flex-shrink-0 sm:ml-3"> <button type="button" class="-mr-1 flex p-2 rounded-md focus:outline-none sm:-mr-2 transition" :class="{ 'hover:bg-indigo-600 focus:bg-indigo-600': style == 'success', 'hover:bg-red-600 focus:bg-red-600': style == 'danger' }" aria-label="Dismiss" x-on:click="show = false"> <svg class="h-5 w-5 text-white" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" fill="none" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke="currentColor"> <path stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M6 18L18 6M6 6l12 12" /> </svg> </button> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="min-h-screen bg-gray-100"> <nav x-data="{ open: false }" class="bg-white">  <div class="max-w-7xl mx-auto px-4 sm:px-6 lg:px-8"> <div class="flex justify-between h-11 sm:h-12"> <div class="flex">  <div class="flex-shrink-0 flex items-center"> <a href="https://fantasygameday.net" class="text-xl font-bold tracking-wider text-primary-500"> Fantasygameday </a> </div>  <div class="hidden space-x-8 sm:-my-px sm:ml-10 sm:flex"> <a class="inline-flex items-center px-1 pt-1 border-b-2 border-transparent text-sm font-medium leading-5 text-gray-500 hover:text-gray-700 hover:border-gray-300 focus:outline-none focus:text-gray-700 focus:border-gray-300 transition" href="https://fantasygameday.net"> Home </a> <a class="inline-flex items-center px-1 pt-1 border-b-2 border-transparent text-sm font-medium leading-5 text-gray-500 hover:text-gray-700 hover:border-gray-300 focus:outline-none focus:text-gray-700 focus:border-gray-300 transition" href="https://fantasygameday.net/search-article"> Search </a> <form class="inline-flex items-center w-72 mb-0" action="https://fantasygameday.net/search-article" target="_top" > <input aria-label="keyword" type="text" name="keyword" class="ml-4 sm:ml-0 mt-2 sm:mt-0 w-full text-sm rounded-lg border-gray-200 border-solid-x" placeholder="Search..." /> </form> </div> </div>  <div class="-mr-2 flex items-center sm:hidden"> <button @click="open = ! open" aria-label="menu" class="inline-flex items-center justify-center p-2 rounded-md text-gray-400 hover:text-gray-500 hover:bg-gray-100 focus:outline-none focus:bg-gray-100 focus:text-gray-500 transition"> <svg class="h-6 w-6" stroke="currentColor" fill="none" viewBox="0 0 24 24"> <path :class="{'hidden': open, 'inline-flex': ! open }" class="inline-flex" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M4 6h16M4 12h16M4 18h16" /> <path :class="{'hidden': ! open, 'inline-flex': open }" class="hidden" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M6 18L18 6M6 6l12 12" /> </svg> </button> </div> </div> </div>  <div :class="{'block': open, 'hidden': ! open}" class="hidden sm:hidden"> <div class="pt-2 pb-3 space-y-1"> <a class="block pl-3 pr-4 py-2 border-l-4 border-transparent text-base font-medium text-gray-600 hover:text-gray-800 hover:bg-gray-50 hover:border-gray-300 focus:outline-none focus:text-gray-800 focus:bg-gray-50 focus:border-gray-300 transition" href="https://fantasygameday.net"> Home </a> <a class="block pl-3 pr-4 py-2 border-l-4 border-transparent text-base font-medium text-gray-600 hover:text-gray-800 hover:bg-gray-50 hover:border-gray-300 focus:outline-none focus:text-gray-800 focus:bg-gray-50 focus:border-gray-300 transition" href="https://fantasygameday.net/search-article"> Search </a> <form class="inline-flex items-center w-72 mb-0" action="https://fantasygameday.net/search-article" target="_top" > <input aria-label="keyword" type="text" name="keyword" class="ml-4 sm:ml-0 mt-2 sm:mt-0 w-full text-sm rounded-lg border-gray-200 border-solid-x" placeholder="Search..." /> </form> </div> </div> </nav> <div class="text-center text-center my-0 sm:my-1 " > <ins class="adsbygoogle adsense " data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" style="display:block" data-ad-format="auto" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-adtest="off" > </ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </div> <main class="mt-2 flex"> <div class="text-center sticky top-2 left-2 hidden xl:block flex-shrink-0 " style="width: 160px; height: 600px;" > <ins class="adsbygoogle adsense h-ad4 " data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" style="display:block" data-ad-format="auto" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-adtest="off" > </ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </div> <div class="main-container container"> <main class="left-container doc-detail"> <section class="hentry flex items-center md:items-start mt-3 md:mt-3 ml-0 flex-col md:flex-row"> <div class="w-full"> <h1 class="entry-title mb-5 text-center font-semibold text-2xl xl:text-4xl !leading-common"> The City of God (volume 1) (2024) </h1> <div class="bg-primary-100 text-common !leading-common rounded-lg pl-5 pr-2 py-4 mb-2 space-y-2 text-primary-500"> <div class="font-semibold">Table of Contents</div> <a class="list-item toc-h3" href="#toc-0">From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia</a> <a class="list-item toc-h2" href="#toc-1">Full text</a> <a class="list-item toc-h2" href="#toc-2">Full text</a> </div> <div class="text-center my-2 sm:my-4 " > <ins class="adsbygoogle adsense h-ad3 " data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" style="display:block" data-ad-format="auto" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-adtest="off" > </ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </div> <article class="article-detail"> <section class="entry-content paragraph"><div><h3 id="toc-0">From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia</h3><div><p>Jump to: <span>navigation</span>, <span>search</span></p></div><p>{{Template}}<i><span>The City of God</span></i> (5th century) by <span>St. Augustine</span></p><div><p>[<span>edit</span>]</p></div><h2 id="toc-1">Full text</h2><p>A NEW TRANSLATION.Edited by theREV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.VOL. I.THE CITY OF GOD,VOLUME I.EDINBURGH:T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.MDCCCLXXI.BR65A6+31878v. I.c.2873909PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,FORT. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.DUBLIN, JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.NEW YORK, 10 C. SCRIBNER AND CO.THECITY OF GO D.Translated by theREV. MARCUS DODS, M.A.VOLUME I.EDINBURGH:T & T CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.MDCCCLXXI.571Or the following Work, Books IV. XVII. and XVIII. have been translatedby the Rev. GEORGE WILSON, Glenluce; Books V. VI. VII. and VIII. bythe Rev. J. J. SMITH.CONTENTS.BOOK I.Augustine censures the pagans, who attributed the calamities of theworld, and especially the sack of Rome by the Goths, to the Christian religion and its prohibition of the worship of the gods,BOOK II.A review of the calamities suffered by the Romans before the time ofChrist, showing that their gods had plunged them into corruption and vice,PAGE148The external calamities of Rome,BOOK III.BOOK IV.That empire was given to Rome not by the gods, but by the One TrueGod, .91135BOOK V.Of fate, freewill, and God's prescience, and of the source of the virtuesof the ancient Romans, 177BOOK VI.Of Varro's threefold division of theology, and of the inability of thegods to contribute anything to the happiness of the future life, 228BOOK VII.Of the " select gods " of the civil theology, and that eternal life is notobtained by worshipping them, 258vi CONTENTS.BOOK VIII.Some account of the Socratic and Platonic philosophy, and a refutation of the doctrine of Apuleius that the demons should be worshipped as mediators between gods and men,BOOK IX.Of those who allege a distinction among demons, some being good andothers evil, .BOOK X.Porphyry's doctrine of redemption,BOOK XI.Augustine passes to the second part of the work, in which the origin,progress, and destinies of the earthly and heavenly cities are discussed . -Speculations regarding the creation of the world,BOOK XII.•PAGE305 .353382436Of the creation of angels and men, and of the origin of evil, 481BOOK XIII.That death is penal, and had its origin in Adam's sin,521EDITOR'S PREFACE."ROME having been stormed and sacked by the Goths Ꭱ under Alaric their king, the worshippers of falsegods, or pagans, as we commonly call them, made an attemptto attribute this calamity to the Christian religion, and beganto blaspheme the true God with even more than their wontedbitterness and acerbity. It was this which kindled my zealfor the house of God, and prompted me to undertake thedefence of the city of God against the charges and misrepresentations of its assailants.for several years, owing to themany other affairs which had aand which I could not defer.ing was at last completed in twenty-two books. Of these,the first five refute those who fancy that the polytheisticworship is necessary in order to secure worldly prosperity,and that all these overwhelming calamities have befallen usin consequence of its prohibition. In the following fiveThis work was in my handsinterruptions occasioned byprior claim on my attention,However, this great undertakbooks I address myself to those who admit that such calamities have at all times attended, and will at all times attend,the human race, and that they constantly recur in forms moreor less disastrous, varying only in the scenes, occasions, andpersons on whom they light, but, while admitting this, maintain that the worship of the gods is advantageous for the lifeto come. In these ten books, then, I refute these twoopinions, which are as groundless as they are antagonistic tothe Christian religion.' But that no one might have occasion to say, that thoughI had refuted the tenets of other men, I had omitted toestablish my own, I devote to this object the second part of1 A.D. 410.viii EDITOR'S PREFACE.this work, which comprises twelve books, although I havenot scrupled, as occasion offered, either to advance my ownopinions in the first ten books, or to demolish the argumentsof my opponents in the last twelve. Of these twelve books ,the first four contain an account of the origin of these two/' cities the city of God, and the city of the world. The1 second four treat of their history or progress; the third and3 last four, of their deserved destinies. And so, though allthese twenty-two books refer to both cities, yet I havenamed them after the better city, and called them The Cityof God. "Such is the account given by Augustine himself¹ of theoccasion and plan of this his greatest work. But in additionto this explicit information, we learn from the correspondence²of Augustine, that it was due to the importunity of his friendMarcellinus that this defence of Christianity extended beyondthe limits of a few letters. Shortly before the fall of Rome,Marcellinus had been sent to Africa by the Emperor Honoriusto arrange a settlement of the differences between the Donatists and the Catholics. This brought him into contact notonly with Augustine, but with Volusian, the proconsul ofAfrica, and a man of rare intelligence and candour. Findingthat Volusian, though as yet a pagan, took an interest in theChristian religion, Marcellinus set his heart on convertinghim to the true faith. The details of the subsequent significant intercourse between the learned and courtly bishop andthe two imperial statesmen, are unfortunately almost entirelylost to us; but the impression conveyed by the extant correspondence is, that Marcellinus was the means of bringing histwo friends into communication with one another. The firstoverture was on Augustine's part, in the shape of a simpleand manly request that Volusian would carefully peruse theScriptures, accompanied by a frank offer to do his best tosolve any difficulties that might arise in such a course ofinquiry. Volusian accordingly enters into correspondencewith Augustine; and in order to illustrate the kind of difficulties experienced by men in his position, he gives somegraphic notes of a conversation in which he had recently1 Retractations, ii. 43. 2 Letters 132-8.EDITOR'S PREFACE.ixtaken part at a gathering of some of his friends. The difficulty to which most weight is attached in this letter, is theapparent impossibility of believing in the Incarnation. Buta letter which Marcellinus immediately despatched to Augustine, urging him to reply to Volusian at large, brought theintelligence that the difficulties and objections to Christianitywere thus limited merely out of a courteous regard to thepreciousness of the bishop's time, and the vast number of hisengagements. This letter, in short, brought out the importantfact, that a removal of speculative doubts would not sufficefor the conversion of such men as Volusian, whose life wasone with the life of the empire. Their difficulties were ratherpolitical, historical, and social. They could not see how thereception of the Christian rule of life was compatible withthe interests of Rome as the mistress of the world.¹thus Augustine was led to take a more distinct and widerview of the whole relation which Christianity bore to the oldstate of things, —moral, political, philosophical, and religious,-and was gradually drawn on to undertake the elaboratework now presented to the English reader, and which maymore appropriately than any other of his writings be calledhis masterpiece or life-work. It was begun the very year ofMarcellinus' death, A.D. 413, and was issued in detachedportions from time to time, until its completion in the year426. It thus occupied the maturest years of Augustine'slife-from his fifty-ninth to his seventy-second year.3AndFrom this brief sketch, it will be seen that though theaccompanying work is essentially an Apology, the Apologeticof Augustine can be no mere rehabilitation of the somewhatthreadbare, if not effete, arguments of Justin and Tertullian. *In fact, as Augustine considered what was required of him,-to expound the Christian faith, and justify it to enlightened /' See some admirable remarks on this subject in the useful work of Beugnot,Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme, ii. 83 et sqq.<div class="bg-primary-100 rounded-lg my-6 px-2 py-3 font-semibold insert" style="color: rgb(37, 99, 235)"><div class="text-common !leading-common ml-1 insert" style="margin-top: 0.2rem; margin-bottom: 0.2rem">See Also</div><a class="list-item toc-h2 py-1" style="border-bottom: none" href="https://fantasygameday.net/article/watch-tale-of-the-nine-tailed-season-1-for-free-starz-on/9196" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch Tale Of The Nine Tailed season 1 For Free | STARZ ON</a></div><div class="sm:flex sm:items-center sm:justify-center sm:flex-row sm:space-x-1 insert" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;"><ins class="adsbygoogle sm:w-1/2" style="display:block; text-align:center;" data-ad-layout="in-article" data-ad-format="fluid" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-adtest="off"></ins><script>(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script><ins class="adsbygoogle sm:w-1/2" style="display:block; text-align:center;" data-ad-layout="in-article" data-ad-format="fluid" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-adtest="off"></ins><script>(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script></div></p><ul><li> As Waterland ( iv. 760) does call it, adding that it is " his most learned,</li></ul><p>most correct, and most elaborate work. '39For proof, see the Benedictine Preface."Hitherto the Apologies had been framed to meet particular exigencies:they were either brief and pregnant statements of the Christian doctrines; refutations of prevalent calumnies; invectives against the follies and crimes ofX EDITOR'S PREFACE.men; to distinguish it from, and show its superiority to, all2 those forms of truth, philosophical or popular, which werethen striving for the mastery, or at least for standing-room;to set before the world's eye a vision of glory that might winthe regard even of men who were dazzled by the fascinatingsplendour of a world-wide empire, he recognised that a taskwas laid before him to which even his powers might proveunequal,—a task certainly which would afford ample scope forhis learning, dialectic, philosophical grasp and acumen, eloquence, and faculty of exposition.But it is the occasion of this great Apology which investsit at once with grandeur and vitality. After more than elevenhundred years of steady and triumphant progress, Rome hadbeen taken and sacked. It is difficult for us to appreciate,impossible to overestimate, the shock which was thus communicated from centre to circumference of the whole knownworld. It was generally believed, not only by the heathen,but also by many of the most liberal-minded of the Christians,that the destruction of Rome would be the prelude to thedestruction of the world. Even Jerome, who might havebeen supposed to be embittered against the proud mistressof the world by her inhospitality to himself, cannot concealhis profound emotion on hearing of her fall. "A terriblerumour," he says, " reaches me from the West, telling of Romebesieged, bought for gold, besieged again, life and propertyperishing together. My voice falters, sobs stifle the words Idictate; for she is a captive, that city which enthralled theworld."" Augustine is never so theatrical as Jerome in theexpression of his feeling, but he is equally explicit in lamenting the fall of Rome as a great calamity; and while he doesnot scruple to ascribe her recent disgrace to the profligatePaganism; or confutations of anti- Christian works like those of Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian, closely following their course of argument, and rarely expanding into general and comprehensive views of the great conflict. ” —MILMAN,History of Christianity, iii. c. 10. We are not acquainted with any morecomplete preface to the City of God than is contained in the two or three pages which Milman has devoted to this subject.¹ See the interesting remarks of Lactantius, Instit. vii. 25.2 "Hæret vox et singultus intercipiunt verba dictantis. Capitur urbs quætotum cepit orbem. "-JEROME, iv. 783.EDITOR'S PREFACE.ximanners, the effeminacy, and the pride of her citizens, he isnot without hope that, by a return to the simple, hardy, andhonourable mode of life which characterized the early Romans,she may still be restored to much of her former prosperity.¹But as Augustine contemplates the ruins of Rome's greatness, 'and feels, in common with all the world at this crisis, theinstability of the strongest governments, the insufficiency ofthe most authoritative statesmanship, there hovers over these realruins the splendid vision of the city of God " coming downout of heaven, adorned as a bride for her husband." The old The old Sirmonsocial system is crumbling away on all sides, but in its place tu.he seems to see a pure Christendom arising. He sees thathuman history and human destiny are not wholly identifiedwith the history of any earthly power-not though it be ascosmopolitan as the empire of Rome. He directs the attention of men to the fact that there is another kingdom onearth, a city which hath foundations, whose builder andmaker is God. He teaches men to take profounder views ofhistory, and shows them how from the first the city of God,or community of God's people, has lived alongside of thekingdoms of this world and their glory, and has been silentlyincreasing, " crescit occulto velut arbor ævo." He demonstrates that the superior morality, the true doctrine, theheavenly origin of this city, ensure its success; and overagainst this, he depicts the silly or contradictory theorizingsof the pagan philosophers, and the unhinged morals of thepeople, and puts it to all candid men to say, whether in thepresence of so manifestly sufficient a cause for Rome's downfall, there is room for imputing it to the spread of Christianity. He traces the antagonism of these two grand communities of rational creatures back to their first divergencein the fall of the angels, and down to the consummation of allthings in the last judgment and eternal destination of the goodand evil. In other words, the city of God is "the first realeffort to produce a philosophy of history," to exhibit historical1 See below, iv. 7.</p><ul><li> This is well brought out by Merivale, Conversion of the Roman Empire,</li></ul><p>p. 145, etc. 3Ozanam, History of Civilisation in the Fifth Century (Eng. trans. ) , ii. 160.xii EDITOR'S PREFACE.events in connection with their true causes, and in their realsequence. This plan of the work is not only a great conception, but it is accompanied with many practical advantages;the chief of which is, that it admits, and even requires, a fulltreatment of those doctrines of our faith that are more directlyhistorical, the doctrines of creation, the fall, the incarnation,the connection between the Old and New Testaments, and thedoctrine of " the last things."The effect produced by this great work it is impossibleto determine with accuracy. Beugnot, with an absolutenesswhich we should condemn as presumption in any less competent authority, declares that its effect can only have beenvery slight. Probably its effect would be silent and slow;telling first upon cultivated minds, and only indirectly uponthe people. Certainly its effect must have been weakenedby the interrupted manner of its publication. It is an easiertask to estimate its intrinsic value. But on this also patristicand literary authorities widely differ. Dupin admits that itis very pleasant reading, owing to the surprising variety ofmatters which are introduced to illustrate and forward theargument, but censures the author for discussing very uselessquestions, and for adducing reasons which could satisfy noone who was not already convinced.3 Huet also speaks ofthe book as un amas confus d'excellents materiaux; c'est del'or en barre et en lingots." L'Abbé Flottes censures theseopinions as unjust, and cites with approbation the unqualifiedeulogy of Pressensé.5 But probably the popularity of thebook is its best justification. This popularity may bemeasured by the circumstance that, between the year 1467and the end of the fifteenth century, no fewer than twenty66"14¹ Abstracts of the work at greater or less length are given by Dupin, Bindemann, Böhringer, Poujoulat, Ozanam, and others.2 His words are: " Plus on examine la Cité de Dieu, plus on reste convaincuque cet ouvrage dût exercea tres- peu d'influence sur l'esprit des païens " ( ii. 122);and this though he thinks one cannot but be struck with the grandeur of the ideas it contains.3 History ofEcclesiastical Writers, i. 406.4 Huetiana, p. 24.5 Flottes, Etudes sur S. Augustin (Paris, 1861 ), pp. 154-6, one of the mostaccurate and interesting even of French monographs on theological writers.EDITOR'S PREFACE. xiiieditions were called for, that is to say, a fresh edition everyeighteen months.¹ And in the interesting series of lettersthat passed between Ludovicus Vives and Erasmus, who hadengaged him to write a commentary on the City of God forhis edition of Augustine's works, we find Vives pleading fora separate edition of this work, on the plea that, of all thewritings of Augustine, it was almost the only one read bypatristic students, and might therefore naturally be expectedto have a much wider circulation.2If it were asked to what this popularity is due, we shouldbe disposed to attribute it mainly to the great variety of ideas,opinions, and facts that are here brought before the reader'smind. Its importance as a contribution to the history ofopinion cannot be overrated. We find in it not only indications or explicit enouncement of the author's own views uponalmost every important topic which occupied his thoughts,but also a compendious exhibition of the ideas which mostpowerfully influenced the life of that age. It thus becomes,as Poujoulat says, " comme l'encyclopédie du cinquième siècle. "All that is valuable, together with much indeed that is not so,in the religion and philosophy of the classical nations ofantiquity, is reviewed. And on some branches of these subjects it has, in the judgment of one well qualified to judge,"preserved more than the whole surviving Latin literature."It is true we are sometimes wearied by the too elaboraterefutation of opinions which to a modern mind seem selfevident absurdities; but if these opinions were actually prevalent in the fifth century, the historical inquirer will notquarrel with the form in which his information is conveyed,nor will commit the absurdity of attributing to Augustine thefoolishness of these opinions, but rather the credit of exploding them. That Augustine is a well-informed and impartial' These editions will be found detailed in the second volume of Schoenemann'sBibliotheca Pat.2 His words (in Ep. vi. ) are quite worth quoting: "Cura rogo te, ut excudantur aliquot centena exemplarium istius operis a reliquo Augustini corporeseparata; nam multi erunt studiosi qui Augustinum totum emere vel nollent,vel non poterunt, quia non egebunt, seu quia tantum pecuniæ non habebunt.Scio enim fere a deditis studiis istis elegantioribus præter hoc Augustini opusnullum fere aliud legi ejusdem autoris. "xiv EDITOR'S PREFACE.Thecritic, is evinced by the courteousness and candour which heuniformly displays to his opponents, by the respect he wonfrom the heathen themselves, and by his own early life.most rigorous criticism has found him at fault regardingmatters of fact only in some very rare instances, which canbe easily accounted for. His learning would not indeed standcomparison with what is accounted such in our day: hislife was too busy, and too devoted to the poor and to thespiritually necessitous, to admit of any extraordinary acquisition. He had access to no literature but the Latin; or atleast he had only sufficient Greek to enable him to refer toGreek authors on points of importance, and not enough toenable him to read their writings with ease and pleasure. 'But he had a profound knowledge of his own time, and afamiliar acquaintance not only with the Latin poets, but withmany other authors, some of whose writings are now lost tous, save the fragments preserved through his quotations.But the interest attaching to the City of God is not merelyhistorical. It is the earnestness and ability with which hedevelopes his own philosophical and theological views whichgradually fascinate the reader, and make him see why theworld has set this among the few greatest books of all time.The fundamental lines of the Augustinian theology are herelaid down in a comprehensive and interesting form. Neverwas thought so abstract expressed in language so popular..He handles metaphysical problems with the unembarrassed .ease of Plato, with all Cicero's accuracy and acuteness, andmore than Cicero's profundity. He is never more at homethan when exposing the incompetency of Neoplatonism, ordemonstrating the harmony of Christian doctrine and truephilosophy. And though there are in the City of God, asin all ancient books, things that seem to us childish andbarren, there are also the most surprising anticipations ofmodern speculation. There is an earnest grappling withthose problems which are continually re-opened because theyunderlie man's relation to God and the spiritual world,-the1 The fullest and fairest discussion of the very simple yet never settled question of Augustine's learning will be found in Nourrisson's Philosophie de S. Augustin, ii. 92-100.EDITOR'S PREFACE. XVproblems which are not peculiar to any one century. As weread these animated discussions,</p><ol><li>C</li></ol><p>"The fourteen centuries fall awayBetween us and the Afric saint,And at his side we urge, to-day,The immemorial quest and old complaint.No outward sign to us is given,From sea or earth comes no reply;Hushed as the warm Numidian heavenHe vainly questioned bends our frozen sky. "." 1It is true, the style of the book is not all that could bedesired: there are passages which can possess an interestonly to the antiquarian; there are others with nothing toredeem them but the glow of their eloquence; there aremany repetitions; there is an occasional use of arguments."plus ingenieux que solides," as M. Saisset says. Augustine'sgreat admirer, Erasmus, does not scruple to call him a writer"obscuræ subtilitatis et parum amoenæ prolixitatis; " butthe toil of penetrating the apparent obscurities will be rewarded by finding a real wealth of insight and enlightenment."Some who have read the opening chapters of the City of God,may have considered it would be a waste of time to proceed;but no one, we are persuaded, ever regretted reading it all.The book has its faults; but it effectually introduces us tothe most influential of theologians, and the greatest popularteacher; to a genius that cannot nod for many lines together;to a reasoner whose dialectic is more formidable, more keenand sifting, than that of Socrates or Aquinas; to a saint whoseardent and genuine devotional feeling bursts up through theseverest argumentation; to a man whose kindliness and wit,universal sympathies and breadth of intelligence, lend piquancyand vitality to the most abstract dissertation.The propriety of publishing a translation of so choice aspecimen of ancient literature needs no defence. As Poujoulat very sensibly remarks, there are not a great many mennow-a-days who will read a work in Latin of twenty- twobooks. Perhaps there are fewer still who ought to do so.With our busy neighbours in France, this work has been a1 Erasmi Epistola xx. 2.xvi EDITOR'S PREFACE.prime favourite for 400 years. There may be said to beeight independent translations of it into the French tongue,though some of these are in part merely revisions. One ofthese translations has gone through as many as four editions.The most recent is that which forms part of the Nisard series;but the best, so far as we have seen, is that of the accomplishedProfessor of Philosophy in the College of France, Emile Saisset.This translation is indeed all that can be desired: here andthere an omission occurs, and about one or two renderings adifference of opinion may exist; but the exceeding felicityand spirit of the whole show it to have been a labour oflove, the fond homage of a disciple proud of his master. Thepreface of M. Saisset is one of the most valuable contributionsever made to the understanding of Augustine's philosophy.¹Of English translations there has been an unaccountablepoverty. Only one exists, and this so exceptionally bad, sounlike the racy translations of the seventeenth century ingeneral, so inaccurate, and so frequently unintelligible, thatit is not impossible it may have done something towardsgiving the English public a distaste for the book itself. Thatthe present translation also might be improved, we know;that many men were fitter for the task, on the score ofscholarship, we are very sensible; but that any one wouldhave executed it with intenser affection and veneration forthe author, we are not prepared to admit. A few notes havebeen added where it appeared to be necessary. Some areoriginal, some from the Benedictine Augustine, and the restfrom the elaborate commentary of Vives.3GLASGOW, 1871.THE EDITOR.1 A large part of it has been translated in Saisset's Pantheism ( Clark, Edin. ) .2 By J. H., published in 1610, and again in 1620, with Vives' commentary.3 As the letters of Vives are not in every library, we give his comico- patheticaccount of the result of his Augustinian labours on his health: " Ex quoAugustinum perfeci, nunquam valui ex sententia; proximâ vero hebdomadeet hac, fracto corpore cuncto, et nervis lassitudine quadam et debilitate dejectis,in caput decem turres incumbere mihi videntur incidendo pondere, ac moleintolerabili; isti sunt fructus studiorum, et merces pulcherrimi laboris; quidlabor et benefacta juvant? "THE CITY OF GOD.BOOK FIRST.ARGUMENT.AUGUSTINE CENSURES THE PAGANS, WHO ATTRIBUTED THE CALAMITIES OF THEWORLD, AND ESPECIALLY THE RECENT SACK OF ROME BY THE GOTHS, TOTHE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AND ITS PROHIBITION OF THE WORSHIP OF THEGODS. HE SPEAKS OF THE BLESSINGS AND ILLS OF LIFE, WHICH THEN, ASALWAYS, HAPPENED TO GOOD AND BAD MEN ALIKE. FINALLY, HE REBUKESTHE SHAMELESSNESS OF THOSE WHO CAST UP TO THE CHRISTIANS THATTHEIR WOMEN HAD BEEN VIOLATED BY THE SOLDIERS.PREFACE, EXPLAINING HIS DESIGN IN UNDERTAKINGTHIS WORK.HE glorious city of God is my theme in this work, whichyou, my dearest son Marcellinus,' suggested, and whichis due to you by my promise. I have undertaken its defenceagainst those who prefer their own gods to the Founder ofthis city, a city surpassingly glorious, whether we view it as itstill lives by faith in this fleeting course of time, and sojournsas a stranger in the midst of the ungodly, or as it shall dwellin the fixed stability of its eternal seat, which it now withpatience waits for, expecting until " righteousness shall returnunto judgment," and it obtain, by virtue of its excellence,final victory and perfect peace. A great work this, and anarduous; but God is my helper. For I am aware whatability is requisite to persuade the proud how great is thevirtue of humility, which raises us, not by a quite humanarrogance, but by a divine grace, above all earthly dignitiesthat totter on this shifting scene. For the King and FounderVOL. I.1 See the Editor's Preface.2 Ps. xciv. 15, rendered otherwise in Eng. ver.2 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK Lof this city of which we speak, has in Scripture uttered toHis people a dictum of the divine law in these words: " Godresisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." Butthis, which is God's prerogative, the inflated ambition of aproud spirit also affects, and dearly loves that this be numberedamong its attributes, to" Show pity to the humbled soul,And crush the sons of pride. "2And therefore, as the plan of this work we have undertakenrequires, and as occasion offers, we must speak also of theearthly city, which, though it be mistress of the nations, isitself ruled by its lust of rule.1. Ofthe adversaries of the name ofChrist, whom the barbariansfor Christ'ssake spared when they stormed the city.For to this earthly city belong the enemies against whomI have to defend the city of God. Many of them, indeed,being reclaimed from their ungodly error, have become sufficiently creditable citizens of this city; but many are so inflamed with hatred against it, and are so ungrateful to itsRedeemer for His signal benefits, as to forget that they wouldnow be unable to utter a single word to its prejudice, had theynot found in its sacred places, as they fled from the enemy'ssteel, that life in which they now boast themselves. Are notthose very Romans, who were spared by the barbarians throughtheir respect for Christ, become enemies to the name of Christ?The reliquaries of the martyrs and the churches of the apostlesbear witness to this; for in the sack of the city they wereopen sanctuary for all who fled to them, whether Christianor Pagan. To their very threshold the bloodthirsty enemyraged; there his murderous fury owned a limit. Thither didsuch of the enemy as had any pity convey those to whomthey had given quarter, lest any less mercifully disposedmight fall upon them. And, indeed, when even those murderers who everywhere else showed themselves pitiless cameto these spots where that was forbidden which the licence ofwar permitted in every other place, their furious rage forslaughter was bridled, and their eagerness to take prisonerswas quenched. Thus escaped multitudes who now reproach1 Jas. iv. 6 and 1 Pet. v. 5. 2 Virgil, Eneid, vi. 854.BOOK 1. ] THE BARBARIANS RESPECT CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 3the Christian religion, and impute to Christ the ills that havebefallen their city; but the preservation of their own life—aboon which they owe to the respect entertained for Christ bythe barbarians -they attribute not to our Christ, but to theirown good luck. They ought rather, had they any right perceptions, to attribute the severities and hardships inflicted bytheir enemies, to that divine providence which is wont toreform the depraved manners of men by chastisement, andwhich exercises with similar afflictions the righteous andpraiseworthy, either translating them, when they have passedthrough the trial, to a better world, or detaining them still onearth for ulterior purposes. And they ought to attribute itto the spirit of these Christian times, that, contrary to thecustom of war, these bloodthirsty barbarians spared them, andspared them for Christ's sake, whether this mercy was actuallyshown in promiscuous places, or in those places speciallydedicated to Christ's name, and of which the very largestwere selected as sanctuaries, that full scope might thus begiven to the expansive compassion which desired that a largemultitude might find shelter there. Therefore ought they togive God thanks, and with sincere confession flee for refuge toHis name, that so they may escape the punishment of eternalfire they who with lying lips took upon them this name,that they might escape the punishment of present destruction.For of those whom you see insolently and shamelessly insulting the servants of Christ, there are numbers who would nothave escaped that destruction and slaughter had they not pretended that they themselves were Christ's servants.Yet now,in ungrateful pride and most impious madness, and at therisk of being punished in everlasting darkness, they perverselyoppose that name under which they fraudulently protectedthemselves for the sake of enjoying the light of this brieflife.2. That it is quite contrary to the usage ofwar, that the victors should sparethe vanquished for the sake oftheir gods.There are histories of numberless wars, both before thebuilding of Rome and since its rise and the extension of itsdominion let these be read, and let one instance be cited inwhich, when a city had been taken by foreigners, the victors4 THE [ BOOK I. CITY OF GOD.spared those who were found to have fled for sanctuary to thetemples of their gods; or one instance in which a barbariangeneral gave orders that none should be put to the sword whohad been found in this or that temple. Did not Æneas see"Dying Priam at the shrine,Staining the hearth he made divine? "2Did not Diomede and Ulysses"Drag with red hands, the sentry slain,Her fateful image from your fane,Her chaste locks touch, and stain with goreThe virgin coronal she wore? "Neither is that true which follows, that"Thenceforth the tide of fortune changed,And Greece grew weak. " 4For after this they conquered and destroyed Troy with fire andsword; after this they beheaded Priam as he fled to the altars.Neither did Troy perish because it lost Minerva. For whathad Minerva herself first lost, that she should perish? Herguards perhaps? No doubt; just her guards. For as soonas they were slain, she could be stolen. It was not, in fact,the men who were preserved by the image, but the image bythe men. How, then, was she invoked to defend the city andthe citizens, she who could not defend her own defenders?3. That the Romans did not show their usual sagacity when they trustedthat they would be benefited by the gods who had been unable to defendTroy.And these be the gods to whose protecting care theRomans were delighted to entrust their city! O too, toopiteous mistake! And they are enraged at us when wespeak thus about their gods, though, so far from being enragedat their own writers, they part with money to learn whatthey say; and, indeed, the very teachers of these authors arereckoned worthy of a salary from the public purse, and ofother honours. There is Virgil, who is read by boys, in orderthat this great poet, this most famous and approved of all1 The Benedictines remind us that Alexander and Xenophon, at least on someoccasions, did so.2 Virgil, Æneid, ii. 501-2. The renderings of Virgil are from Conington.3 Ibid. ii. 166. 4 Ibid.BOOK I. ] HELPLESSNESS OF THE GODS OF ROME. 5poets, may impregnate their virgin minds, and may not readilybe forgotten by them, according to that saying of Horace,"The fresh cask long keeps its first tang. "" 1Well, in this Virgil, I say, Juno is introduced as hostile tothe Trojans, and stirring up Æolus, the king of the winds,against them in the words,"A race I hate now ploughs the sea,Transporting Troy to Italy,And home-gods conquered'" 2...And ought prudent men to have entrusted the defence ofRome to these conquered gods? But it will be said, this wasonly the saying of Juno, who, like an angry woman, did notknow what she was saying. What, then, says Æneas himself,-Eneas who is so often designated " pious?" Does he not say," Lo! Panthus, ' scaped from death by flight,Priest of Apollo on the height,His conquered gods with trembling hands He bears, and shelter swift demands? "3Is it not clear that the gods (whom he does not scruple to call"conquered") were rather entrusted to Æneas than he tothem, when it is said to him,"The gods of her domestic shrinesYour country to your care consigns? "4If, then, Virgil says that the gods were such as these, andwere conquered, and that when conquered they could notescape except under the protection of a man, what madnessis it to suppose that Rome had been wisely entrusted to theseguardians, and could not have been taken unless it had lostthem! Indeed, to worship conquered gods as protectors andchampions, what is this but to worship, not good divinities,but evil omens? 5 Would it not be wiser to believe, not thatRome would never have fallen into so great a calamity hadnot they first perished, but rather that they would haveperished long since had not Rome preserved them as long asshe could? For who does not see, when he thinks of it, whata foolish assumption it is that they could not be vanquishedunder vanquished defenders, and that they only perished1 Horace, Ep. I. ii. 69. 2 Eneid, i. 71.5 Non numina bona, sed omina mala.3 Ibid. ii. 319. 4Ibid. 293.6 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK I.because they had lost their guardian gods, when, indeed, theonly cause of their perishing was that they chose for theirprotectors gods condemned to perish? The poets, therefore,when they composed and sang these things about the conquered gods, had no intention to invent falsehoods, but uttered,as honest men, what the truth extorted from them. This,however, will be carefully and copiously discussed in anotherand more fitting place. Meanwhile I will briefly, and to thebest of my ability, explain what I meant to say about theseungrateful men who blasphemously impute to Christ the calamities which they deservedly suffer in consequence of theirown wicked ways, while that which is for Christ's sake sparedthem in spite of their wickedness they do not even take thetrouble to notice; and in their mad and blasphemous insolence,they use against His name those very lips wherewith theyfalsely claimed that same name that their lives might bespared. In the places consecrated to Christ, where for Hissake no enemy would injure them, they restrained their tonguesthat they might be safe and protected; but no sooner do theyemerge from these sanctuaries, than they unbridle these tonguesto hurl against Him curses full of hate.4. Ofthe asylum ofJuno in Troy, which saved no one from the Greeks; and ofthe churches of the apostles, which protected from the barbarians all whofled to them.Troy itself, the mother of the Roman people, was not able,as I have said, to protect its own citizens in the sacred placesof their gods from the fire and sword of the Greeks, thoughthe Greeks worshipped the same gods. Not only so, but" Phoenix and Ulysses fellIn the void courts by Juno's cellWere set the spoil to keep;Snatched from the burning shrines away,There Ilium's mighty treasure lay,Rich altars, bowls of massy gold,And captive raiment, rudely rolledIn one promiscuous heap;While boys and matrons, wild with fear,In long array were standing near. " 1In other words, the place consecrated to so great a goddess1 Virgil, Eneid, ii. 761 .BOOK I. ] THE ASYLUM OF JUNO IN TROY. 7was chosen, not that from it none might be led out a captive,but that in it all the captives might be immured. Comparenow this " asylum "—the asylum not of an ordinary god, notof one of the rank and file of gods, but of Jove's own sisterand wife, the queen of all the gods-with the churches builtin memory of the apostles. Into it were collected the spoilsrescued from the blazing temples and snatched from the gods,not that they might be restored to the vanquished, but dividedamong the victors; while into these was carried back, with themost religious observance and respect, everything which belonged to them, even though found elsewhere. There libertywas lost; here preserved. There bondage was strict; herestrictly excluded. Into that temple men were driven to become the chattels of their enemies, now lording it over them;into these churches men were led by their relenting foes, thatthey might be at liberty. In fine, the gentle¹ Greeks appropriated that temple of Juno to the purposes of their ownavarice and pride; while these churches of Christ were choseneven by the savage barbarians as the fit scenes for humilityand mercy. But perhaps, after all, the Greeks did in thatvictory of theirs spare the temples of those gods whom theyworshipped in common with the Trojans, and did not dare toput to the sword or make captive the wretched and vanquishedTrojans who fled thither; and perhaps Virgil, in the mannerof poets, has depicted what never really happened? But thereis no question that he depicted the usual custom of an enemywhen sacking a city.5. Cæsar's statement regarding the universal custom of an enemy whensacking a city.Even Cæsar himself gives us positive testimony regardingthis custom; for, in his deliverance in the senate about theconspirators, he says (as Sallust, a historian of distinguishedveracity, writes 2) " that virgins and boys are violated, childrentorn from the embrace of their parents, matrons subjected to¹ Though “ levis ” was the word usually employed to signify the inconstancyofthe Greeks, it is evidently here used, in opposition to " immanis " of the following clause, to indicate that the Greeks were more civilised than the barbarians,and not relentless, but, as we say, easily moved.De Conj. Cat. c. 51.8 THE [BOOK I. CITY OF GOD.whatever should be the pleasure of the conquerors, templesand houses plundered, slaughter and burning rife; in fine, allthings filled with arms, corpses, blood, and wailing." If hehad not mentioned temples here, we might suppose thatenemies were in the habit of sparing the dwellings of the gods.And the Roman temples were in danger of these disasters,not from foreign foes, but from Catiline and his associates,the most noble senators and citizens of Rome. But these,it may be said, were abandoned men, and the parricides oftheir fatherland.6. That not even the Romans, when they took cities, spared the conqueredin their temples.Why, then, need our argument take note of the manynations who have waged wars with one another, and havenowhere spared the conquered in the temples of their gods?Let us look at the practice of the Romans themselves: let us,I say, recall and review the Romans, whose chief praise it hasbeen " to spare the vanquished and subdue the proud," andthat they preferred " rather to forgive than to revenge an injury;" and among so many and great cities which they havestormed, taken, and overthrown for the extension of theirdominion, let us be told what temples they were accustomedto exempt, so that whoever took refuge in them was free. Orhave they really done this, and has the fact been suppressedby the historians of these events? Is it to be believed,that men who sought out with the greatest eagerness pointsthey could praise, would omit those which, in their ownestimation, are the most signal proofs of piety? MarcusMarcellus, a distinguished Roman, who took Syracuse, a mostsplendidly adorned city, is reported to have bewailed itscoming ruin, and to have shed his own tears over itbefore he spilt its blood. He took steps also to preservethe chastity even of his enemy. For before he gave ordersfor the storming of the city, he issued an edict forbidding theviolation of any free person. Yet the city was sacked according to the custom of war; nor do we anywhere read, that evenby so chaste and gentle a commander orders were given thatno one should be injured who had fled to this or that temple.1 Sallust, Cat. Conj. ix.BOOK I. ] CUSTOM OF WAR IN SACKING CITIES. 9And this certainly would by no means have been omitted,when neither his weeping nor his edict preservative of chastitycould be passed in silence. Fabius, the conqueror of the cityof Tarentum, is praised for abstaining from making booty ofthe images. For when his secretary proposed the question tohim, what he wished done with the statues of the gods, whichhad been taken in large numbers, he veiled his moderationunder a joke. For he asked of what sort they were; and whenthey reported to him that there were not only many largeimages, but some of them armed, " Oh," says he, " let us leavewith the Tarentines their angry gods." Seeing, then, that thewriters of Roman history could not pass in silence, neither theweeping of the one general nor the laughing of the other,neither the chaste pity of the one nor the facetious moderation of the other, on what occasion would it be omitted, if, forthe honour of any of their enemy's gods, they had shown this.particular form of leniency, that in any temple slaughter orcaptivity was prohibited?7. That the cruelties which occurred in the sack of Rome were in accordancewith the custom of war, whereas the acts of clemency resulted from theinfluence ofChrist's name.All the spoiling, then, which Rome was exposed to in therecent calamity-all the slaughter, plundering, burning, andmisery was the result of the custom of war. But what wasnovel, was that savage barbarians showed themselves in sogentle a guise, that the largest churches were chosen and setapart for the purpose of being filled with the people to whomquarter was given, and that in them none were slain, fromthem none forcibly dragged; that into them many were ledby their relenting enemies to be set at liberty, and that fromthem none were led into slavery by merciless foes. Whoeverdoes not see that this is to be attributed to the name of Christ,and to the Christian temper, is blind; whoever sees this,and gives no praise, is ungrateful; whoever hinders any onefrom praising it is mad. Far be it from any prudent man toimpute this clemency to the barbarians. Their fierce andbloody minds were awed, and bridled, and marvellously tempered by Him who so long before said by His prophet, " I10 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK Lwill visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquitieswith stripes; nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterlytake from them." 18. Of the advantages and disadvantages which often indiscriminately accrue togood and wicked men.» 2Will some one say, Why, then, was this divine compassionextended even to the ungodly and ungrateful? Why, but because it was the mercy of Him who daily " maketh His sun torise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the justand on the unjust." For though some of these men, takingthought of this, repent of their wickedness and reform, some,as the apostle says, " despising the riches of His goodness andlong-suffering, after their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath andrevelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will renderto every man according to his deeds:"3 nevertheless does thepatience of God still invite the wicked to repentance, even asthe scourge of God educates the good to patience. And so,too, does the mercy of God embrace the good that it maycherish them, as the severity of God arrests the wicked topunish them. To the divine providence it has seemed good toprepare in the world to come for the righteous good things ,which the unrighteous shall not enjoy; and for the wickedevil things, by which the good shall not be tormented. Butas for the good things of this life, and its ills, God has willedthat these should be common to both; that we might not tooeagerly covet the things which wicked men are seen equallyto enjoy, nor shrink with an unseemly fear from the ills whicheven good men often suffer.There is, too, a very great difference in the purpose servedboth by those events which we call adverse and those calledprosperous. For the good man is neither uplifted with thegood things of time, nor broken by its ills; but the wickedman, because he is corrupted by this world's happiness, feelshimself punished by its unhappiness. Yet often, even in the1 Ps. lxxxix. 32. 2 Matt. v. 45. 3 Rom. ii. 4.4 So Cyprian (Contra Demetrianum) says, " Pœnam de adversis mundi illesentit, cui et lætitia et gloria omnis in mundo est.BOOK I. ] WHY GOOD AND BAD MEN SUFFER ALIKE. 11present distribution of temporal things, does God plainly evinceHis own interference. For if every sin were now visited withmanifest punishment, nothing would seem to be reserved forthe final judgment; on the other hand, if no sin received nowa plainly divine punishment, it would be concluded that thereis no divine providence at all. And so of the good things ofthis life: if God did not by a very visible liberality conferthese on some of those persons who ask for them, we shouldsay that these good things were not at His disposal; and ifHe gave them to all who sought them, we should suppose thatsuch were the only rewards of His service; and such a servicewould make us not godly, but greedy rather, and covetous.Wherefore, though good and bad men suffer alike, we mustnot suppose that there is no difference between the men themselves, because there is no difference in what they both suffer.For even in the likeness of the sufferings, there remains anunlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the sameanguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the 2 - Dsame fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; andunder the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain -9.is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with the oil, though ≤ - ·squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the sameviolence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, butdamns, ruins, exterminates the wicked. And thus it is thatin the same affliction the wicked detest God and blaspheme,while the good pray and praise. So material a difference doesit make, not what ills are suffered, but what kind of mansuffers them. For, stirred up with the same movement, mud - .exhales a horrible stench, and ointment emits a fragrant odour.Sinlass9. Ofthe reasons for administering correction to bad and good together.What, then, have the Christians suffered in that calamitousperiod, which would not profit every one who duly and faithfully considered the following circumstances? First of all, theymust humbly consider those very sins which have provoked God afto fill the world with such terrible disasters; for although they be perfefar from the excesses of wicked, immoral, and ungodly men, yetthey do not judge themselves so clean removed from all faultsas to be too good to suffer for these even temporal ills. For12 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK I.every man, however laudably he lives, yet yields in some pointsto the lust of the flesh. Though he do not fall into gross enormity of wickedness, and abandoned viciousness, and abominable profanity, yet he slips into some sins, either rarely or somuch the more frequently as the sins seem of less account.But not to mention this, where can we readily find a man whoholds in fit and just estimation those persons on account ofwhose revolting pride, luxury, and avarice, and cursed iniquities and impiety, God now smites the earth as His predictionsthreatened? Where is the man who lives with them in thestyle in which it becomes us to live with them? For oftenwe wickedly blind ourselves to the occasions of teaching andadmonishing them, sometimes even of reprimanding and chiding them, either because we shrink from the labour or areashamed to offend them, or because we fear to lose good friendships, lest this should stand in the way of our advancement,or injure us in some worldly matter, which either our covetousdisposition desires to obtain, or our weakness shrinks fromlosing. So that, although the conduct of wicked men is distasteful to the good, and therefore they do not fall with theminto that damnation which in the next life awaits such persons,yet, because they spare their damnable sins through fear, therefore, even though their own sins be slight and venial, they arejustly scourged with the wicked in this world, though in eternity they quite escape punishment. Justly, when God afflictsthem in common with the wicked, do they find this life bitter,Rthrough love of whose sweetness they declined to be bitter tothese sinners.If any one forbears to reprove and find fault with thoseRwho are doing wrong, because he seeks a more seasonableopportunity, or because he fears they may be made worse byhis rebuke, or that other weak persons may be disheartenedfrom endeavouring to lead a good and pious life, and may bedriven from the faith; this man's omission seems to be occasioned not by covetousness, but by a charitable consideration.But what is blameworthy is, that they who themselves revoltfrom the conduct of the wicked, and live in quite anotherfashion, yet spare those faults in other men which they oughtto reprehend and wean them from; and spare them becauseBOOK 1. ] CONFORMITY OF CHRISTIANS TO THE UNGODLY. 13they fear to give offence, lest they should injure their interestsin those things which good men may innocently and legitimately use, though they use them more greedily than becomespersons who are strangers in this world, and profess the hopeof a heavenly country. For not only the weaker brethren,who enjoy married life, and have children (or desire to havethem), and own houses and establishments, whom the apostleaddresses in the churches, warning and instructing them howthey should live, both the wives with their husbands, and thehusbands with their wives, the children with their parents,and parents with their children, and servants with their masters,and masters with their servants,-not only do these weakerbrethren gladly obtain and grudgingly lose many earthly andtemporal things on account of which they dare not offend menwhose polluted and wicked life greatly displeases them; butthose also who live at a higher level, who are not entangled inthe meshes of married life, but use meagre food and raiment,do often take thought of their own safety and good name, andabstain from finding fault with the wicked, because they feartheir wiles and violence. And although they do not fear themto such an extent as to be drawn to the commission of likeiniquities, nay, not by any threats or violence soever; yetthose very deeds which they refuse to share in the commissionof, they often decline to find fault with, when possibly theymight by finding fault prevent their commission. They abstainfrom interference, because they fear that, if it fail of good effect,their own safety or reputation may be damaged or destroyed;not because they see that their preservation and good nameare needful, that they may be able to influence those who needtheir instruction, but rather because they weakly relish theflattery and respect of men, and fear the judgments of thepeople, and the pain or death of the body; that is to say,their non-intervention is the result of selfishness, and not oflove.Accordingly, this seems to me to be one principal reasonwhy the good are chastised along with the wicked, when Godis pleased to visit with temporal punishments the profligatemanners of a community. They are punished together, notbecause they have spent an equally corrupt life, but because14. THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK I.the good as well as the wicked, though not equally with them,love this present life; while they ought to hold it cheap, thatthe wicked, being admonished and reformed by their example,might lay hold of life eternal. And if they will not be thecompanions of the good in seeking life everlasting, they shouldbe loved as enemies, and be dealt with patiently. For so longas they live, it remains uncertain whether they may not cometo a better mind. These selfish persons have more cause tofear than those to whom it was said through the prophet, " Heis taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require atthe watchman's hand." 1 For watchmen or overseers of thepeople are appointed in churches, that they may unsparinglyrebuke sin. Nor is that man guiltless of the sin we speak of,who, though he be not a watchman, yet sees in the conduct ofthose with whom the relationships of this life bring him intocontact, many things that should be blamed, and yet overlooksthem, fearing to give offence, and lose such worldly blessingsas may legitimately be desired, but which he too eagerlygrasps. Then, lastly, there is another reason why the goodare afflicted with temporal calamities-the reason which Job'scase exemplifies: that the human spirit may be proved, andthat it may be manifested with what fortitude of pious trust,and with how unmercenary a love, it cleaves to God.210. That the saints lose nothing in losing temporal goods.These are the considerations which one must keep in view,that he may answer the question whether any evil happens tothe faithful and godly which cannot be turned to profit. Orshall we say that the question is needless, and that the apostleis vapouring when he says, " We know that all things worktogether for good to them that love God?" 3They lost all they had. Their faith? Their godliness?The possessions of the hidden man of the heart, which in thesight of God are of great price? Did they lose these? Forthese are the wealth of Christians, to whom the wealthy apostle1 Ezek. xxxiii. 6.2 Compare with this chapter the first homily of Chrysostom to the people of Antioch.3 Rom. viii. 28. 41 Pet. iii. 4.BOOK L ] WHAT CHRISTIANS LOST IN THE FALL OF ROME.15out.said, "Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we broughtnothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothingAnd having food and raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and asnare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drownmen in destruction and perdition. For the love of money isthe root of all evil; which, while some coveted after, they haveerred from the faith, and pierced themselves through withmany sorrows."" 1They, then, who lost their worldly all in the sack of Rome,if they owned their possessions as they had been taught bythe apostle, who himself was poor without, but rich within,—that is to say, if they used the world as not using it,—couldsay in the words of Job, heavily tried, but not overcome:"Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall Ireturn thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away;as it pleased the Lord, so has it come to pass: blessed be thename of the Lord. " Like a good servant, Job counted thewill of his Lord his great possession, by obedience to whichhis soul was enriched; nor did it grieve him to lose, whileyet living, those goods which he must shortly leave at hisdeath. But as to those feebler spirits who, though theycannot be said to prefer earthly possessions to Christ, do yetcleave to them with a somewhat immoderate attachment, theyhave discovered by the pain of losing these things how muchthey were sinning in loving them. For their grief is of theirown making; in the words of the apostle quoted above,"they have pierced themselves through with many sorrows."For it was well that they who had so long despised theseverbal admonitions should receive the teaching of experience.For when the apostle says, " They that will be rich fall intotemptation," and so on, what he blames in riches is not thepossession of them, but the desire of them. For elsewhere hesays, " Charge them that are rich in this world, that they benot high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in theliving God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; thatthey do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for them11 Tim. vi. 6-10. 2 Job i. 21.Armon on16 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK I.selves a good foundation against the time to come, that theymay lay hold on eternal life." They who were making sucha use of their property have been consoled for light losses bygreat gains, and have had more pleasure in those possessionswhich they have securely laid past, by freely giving themaway, than grief in those which they entirely lost by ananxious and selfish hoarding of them. For nothing couldperish on earth save what they would be ashamed to carryaway from earth. Our Lord's injunction runs, " Lay not upfor yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust dothcorrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but layup for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth norrust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through norsteal for where your treasure is, there will your heart bealso." And they who have listened to this injunction haveproved in the time of tribulation how well they were advisedin not despising this most trustworthy teacher, and mostfaithful and mighty guardian of their treasure.For if many</p><dl><dd></dd></dl><p>were glad that their treasure was stored in places which theenemy chanced not to light upon, how much better foundedwas the joy of those who, by the counsel of their God, hadfled with their treasure to a citadel which no enemy can possibly reach! Thus our Paulinus, bishop of Nola, who voluntarily abandoned vast wealth and became quite poor, thoughabundantly rich in holiness, when the barbarians sacked Nola,and took him prisoner, used silently to pray, as he afterwardstold me, " O Lord, let me not be troubled for gold and silver,for where all my treasure is Thou knowest." For all histreasure was where he had been taught to hide and store itby Him who had also foretold that these calamities wouldhappen in the world. Consequently those persons who obeyedtheir Lord when He warned them where and how to lay uptreasure, did not lose even their earthly possessions in theinvasion of the barbarians; while those who are now repenting11 Tim. vi. 17-19. 2 Matt. vi. 19-21.3 Paulinus was a native of Bordeaux, and both by inheritance and marriageacquired great wealth, which, after his conversion in his thirty-sixth year, hedistributed to the poor. He became bishop of Nola in A.D. 409, being then inhis fifty- sixth year. Nola was taken by Alaric shortly after the sack of Rome.BOOK I.]WHY CHRISTIANS WERE TORTURED. 17that they did not obey Him have learnt the right use ofearthly goods, if not by the wisdom which would have prevented their loss, at least by the experience which follows it.But some good and Christian men have been put to thetorture, that they might be forced to deliver up their goods tothe enemy. They could indeed neither deliver nor lose thatgood which made themselves good. If, however, they preferred torture to the surrender of the mammon of iniquity,then I say they were not good men. Rather they shouldhave been reminded that, if they suffered so severely for thesake of money, they should endure all torment, if need be, forChrist's sake; that they might be taught to love Him ratherwho enriches with eternal felicity all who suffer for Him, andnot silver and gold, for which it was pitiable to suffer, whetherthey preserved it by telling a lie, or lost it by telling the truth.For under these tortures no one lost Christ by confessing Him,no one preserved wealth save by denying its existence. Sothat possibly the torture which taught them that they shouldset their affections on a possession they could not lose, wasmore useful than those possessions which, without any usefulfruit at all, disquieted and tormented their anxious owners.But then we are reminded that some were tortured who hadno wealth to surrender, but who were not believed when theysaid so. These too, however, had perhaps some craving forwealth, and were not willingly poor with a holy resignation;and to such it had to be made plain, that not the actual possession alone, but also the desire of wealth, deserved suchexcruciating pains. And even if they were destitute of anyhidden stores of gold and silver, because they were livingin hopes of a better life,-I know not indeed if any suchperson was tortured on the supposition that he had wealth;but if so, then certainly in confessing, when put to the question, a holy poverty, he confessed Christ. And though it wasscarcely to be expected that the barbarians should believehim, yet no confessor of a holy poverty could be torturedwithout receiving a heavenly reward.Again, they say that the long famine laid many a Christianlow. But this, too, the faithful turned to good uses by a piousendurance of it. For those whom famine killed outright itVOL, L. B18 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK I.rescued from the ills of this life, as a kindly disease wouldhave done; and those who were only hunger- bitten weretaught to live more sparingly, and inured to longer fasts.11. Ofthe end ofthis life, whether it is material that it be long delayed.But, it is added, many Christians were slaughtered, andwere put to death in a hideous variety of cruel ways. Well,if this be hard to bear, it is assuredly the common lot of allwho are born into this life. Of this at least I am certain,that no one has ever died who was not destined to die sometime. Now the end of life puts the longest life on a par withthe shortest. For of two things which have alike ceased tobe, the one is not better, the other worse- -the one greater, theother less.¹ And of what consequence is it what kind ofdeath puts an end to life, since he who has died once is notforced to go through the same ordeal a second time? And asin the daily casualties of life every man is, as it were, threatened with numberless deaths, so long as it remains uncertainwhich of them is his fate, I would ask whether it is not betterto suffer one and die, than to live in fear of all? I am notunaware of the poor-spirited fear which prompts us to chooserather to live long in fear of so many deaths, than to die onceand so escape them all; but the weak and cowardly shrinkingof the flesh is one thing, and the well- considered and reasonable persuasion of the soul quite another. That death is notto be judged an evil which is the end of a good life; fordeath becomes evil only by the retribution which follows it.They, then, who are destined to die, need not be careful toinquire what death they are to die, but into what place deathwill usher them. And since Christians are well aware thatthe death of the godly pauper whose sores the dogs lickedwas far better than of the wicked rich man who lay in purpleand fine linen, what harm could these terrific deaths do tothe dead who had lived well?1 Much of a kindred nature might be gathered from the Stoics. Antoninussays (ii. 14): “ Though thou shouldest be going to live 3000 years, and as manytimes 10,000 years, still remember that no man loses any other life than thiswhich he now lives, nor lives any other than this which he now loses. Thelongest and the shortest are thus brought to the same. ”BOOK L] OF THE CHRISTIANS LEFT UNBURIED. 1912. Ofthe burial of the dead: that the denial of it to Christians does them noinjury.¹Further still, we are reminded that in such a carnage asthen occurred, the bodies could not even be buried. Butgodly confidence is not appalled by so ill-omened a circumstance; for the faithful bear in mind that assurance has beengiven that not a hair of their head shall perish, and that,therefore, though they even be devoured by beasts, theirblessed resurrection will not hereby be hindered. The Truthwould nowise have said, " Fear not them which kill the body,but are not able to kill the soul," if anything whatever thatan enemy could do to the body of the slain could be detrimental to the future life. Or will some one perhaps take soabsurd a position as to contend that those who kill the bodyare not to be feared before death, and lest they kill the body,but after death, lest they deprive it of burial?If this be so,then that is false which Christ says, " Be not afraid of themthat kill the body, and after that have no more that they cando; "3 for it seems they can do great injury to the dead body.Far be it from us to suppose that the Truth can be thus false.They who kill the body are said " to do something," becausethe death-blow is felt, the body still having sensation; butafter that, they have no more that they can do, for in theslain body there is no sensation. And so there are indeedmany bodies of Christians lying unburied; but no one hasseparated them from heaven, nor from that earth which is allfilled with the presence of Him who knows whence He willraise again what He created. It is said, indeed, in the Psalm:" The dead bodies of Thy servants have they given to be meatunto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of Thy saints unto thebeasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like waterround about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them."4But this was said rather to exhibit the cruelty of those whodid these things, than the misery of those who suffered them.To the eyes of men this appears a harsh and doleful lot, yetprecious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints."5¹ Augustine expresses himself more fully on this subject in his tract, Decura pro mortuis gerenda.</p><ul><li> Matt. x. 28. 3 Luke xii. 4. Ps. lxxix. 2, 3. 5 Ps. cxvi. 15.</li></ul><p>20 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK LWherefore all these last offices and ceremonies that concernthe dead, the careful funeral arrangements, and the equipmentof the tomb, and the pomp of obsequies, are rather the solaceof the living than the comfort of the dead. If a costly burialdoes any good to a wicked man, a squalid burial, or none at all,may harm the godly. His crowd of domestics furnished thepurple-clad Dives with a funeral gorgeous in the eye of man;but in the sight of God that was a more sumptuous funeralwhich the ulcerous pauper received at the hands of the angels,who did not carry him out to a marble tomb, but bore himaloft to Abraham's bosom.The men against whom I have undertaken to defend thecity of God laugh at all this. But even their own philosophers¹ have despised a careful burial; and often wholearmies have fought and fallen for their earthly country without caring to inquire whether they would be left exposed onthe field of battle, or become the food of wild beasts. Of thisnoble disregard of sepulture poetry has well said: " He whohas no tomb has the sky for his vault." How much lessought they to insult over the unburied bodies of Christians,to whom it has been promised that the flesh itself shall berestored, and the body formed anew, all the members of itbeing gathered not only from the earth, but from the mostsecret recesses of any other of the elements in which the deadbodies of men have lain hid!13. Reasons for burying the bodies ofthe saints.Nevertheless the bodies of the dead are not on this account to be despised and left unburied; least of all the bodiesof the righteous and faithful, which have been used by theHoly Ghost as His organs and instruments for all good works.For if the dress of a father, or his ring, or anything he wore,be precious to his children, in proportion to the love theybore him, with how much more reason ought we to care for¹ Diogenes especially, and his followers. See also Seneca, De Tranq. c. 14,and Epist. 92; and in Cicero's Tusc. Disp. i. 43, the answer of Theodorus, theCyrenian philosopher, to Lysimachus, who threatened him with the cross:"Threaten that to your courtiers; it is of no consequence to Theodorus whetherhe rot in the earth or in the air. "2 Lucan, Pharsalia, vii. 819, of those whom Cæsar forbade to be buried afterthe battle of Pharsalia.BOOK I. ] OF THE CARE DUE TO DEAD BODIES. 213the bodies of those we love, which they wore far more closelyand intimately than any clothing! For the body is not anextraneous ornament or aid, but a part of man's very nature.And therefore to the righteous of ancient times the last officeswere piously rendered, and sepulchres provided for them, andobsequies celebrated; and they themselves, while yet alive,gave commandment to their sons about the burial, and, onoccasion, even about the removal of their bodies to somefavourite place. And Tobit, according to the angel's testimony, is commended, and is said to have pleased God byburying the dead. Our Lord Himself, too, though He wasto rise again the third day, applauds, and commends to ourapplause, the good work of the religious woman who pouredprecious ointment over His limbs, and did it against His burial. *And the Gospel speaks with commendation of those who werecareful to take down His body from the cross, and wrap itlovingly in costly cerements, and see to its burial. Theseinstances certainly do not prove that corpses have any feeling;but they show that God's providence extends even to thebodies of the dead, and that such pious offices are pleasing toHim, as cherishing faith in the resurrection. And we mayalso draw from them this wholesome lesson, that if God doesnot forget even any kind office which loving care pays to theunconscious dead, much more does He reward the charity weexercise towards the living. Other things, indeed, which theholy patriarchs said of the burial and removal of their bodies,they meant to be taken in a prophetic sense; but of these weneed not here speak at large, what we have already said beingsufficient. But if the want of those things which are necessary for the support of the living, as food and clothing, thoughpainful and trying, does not break down the fortitude andvirtuous endurance of good men, nor eradicate piety from theirsouls, but rather renders it more fruitful, how much less canthe absence of the funeral, and of the other customary attentions paid to the dead, render those wretched who are alreadyreposing in the hidden abodes of the blessed! Consequently,though in the sack of Rome and of other towns the dead1 Gen. xxv. 9, xxxv. 29, etc. 2 Gen. xlvii. 29, 1. 24.3 Tob. xii. 12. 4 Matt. xxvi. 10-13. 6 John xix. 38.22 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK I. .bodies of the Christians were deprived of these last offices,this is neither the fault of the living, for they could not renderthem; nor an infliction to the dead, for they cannot feel theloss.14. Ofthe captivity ofthe saints, and that divine consolation never failed them therein.But, say they, many Christians were even led away captive. This indeed were a most pitiable fate, if they could beled away to any place where they could not find their God.But for this calamity also sacred Scripture affords great consolation. The three youths' were captives; Daniel was acaptive; so were other prophets: and God, the comforter, didnot fail them. And in like manner He has not failed Hisown people in the power of a nation which, though barbarous,is yet human, He who did not abandon the prophet' in thebelly of a monster. These things, indeed, are turned to ridicule rather than credited by those with whom we are debating; though they believe what they read in their own books,that Arion of Methymna, the famous lyrist, when he wasthrown overboard, was received on a dolphin's back and carriedto land. But that story of ours about the prophet Jonah isfar more incredible, -more incredible because more marvellous,and more marvellous because a greater exhibition of power.15. Of Regulus, in whom we have an example of the voluntary endurance ofcaptivity for the sake of religion; which yet did not profit him, though hewas a worshipper ofthe gods.But among their own famous men they have a very nobleexample of the voluntary endurance of captivity in obedienceto a religious scruple. Marcus Attilius Regulus, a Romangeneral, was a prisoner in the hands of the Carthaginians.But they, being more anxious to exchange their prisoners withthe Romans than to keep them, sent Regulus as a specialenvoy with their own ambassadors to negotiate this exchange,but bound him first with an oath, that if he failed to accomplish their wish, he would return to Carthage. He went,and persuaded the senate to the opposite course, because he1 Dan. iii.2 Jonah.366' Second to none, " as he is called by Herodotus, who first of all tells hiswell-known story (Clio. 23, 24).BOOK 1. ]MAGNANIMITY OF REGULUS. 23believed it was not for the advantage of the Roman republicto make an exchange of prisoners. After he had thus exertedhis influence, the Romans did not compel him to return to theenemy; but what he had sworn he voluntarily performed.But the Carthaginians put him to death with refined, elaborate, and horrible tortures. They shut him up in a narrowbox, in which he was compelled to stand, and in which finelysharpened nails were fixed all round about him, so that hecould not lean upon any part of it without intense pain; andso they killed him by depriving him of sleep.¹ With justice,indeed, do they applaud the virtue which rose superior to sofrightful a fate. However, the gods he swore by were thosewho are now supposed to avenge the prohibition of their worship, by inflicting these present calamities on the human race.But if these gods, who were worshipped specially in thisbehalf, that they might confer happiness in this life, eitherwilled or permitted these punishments to be inflicted on onewho kept his oath to them, what more cruel punishmentcould they in their anger have inflicted on a perjured person?But why may I not draw from my reasoning a double inference? Regulus certainly had such reverence for the gods,that for his oath's sake he would neither remain in his ownland, nor go elsewhere, but without hesitation returned to hisbitterest enemies. If he thought that this course would beadvantageous with respect to this present life, he was certainlymuch deceived, for it brought his life to a frightful termination. By his own example, in fact, he taught that the godsdo not secure the temporal happiness of their worshippers;since he himself, who was devoted to their worship, was bothconquered in battle and taken prisoner, and then, because herefused to act in violation of the oath he had sworn by them,was tortured and put to death by a new, and hitherto unheardof, and all too horrible kind of punishment. And on the supposition that the worshippers of the gods are rewarded byfelicity in the life to come, why, then, do they calumniatethe influence of Christianity? why do they assert that this1 Augustine here uses the words of Cicero ( " vigilando peremerunt "), whorefers to Regulus, in Pisonem, c. 19. Aulus Gellius, quoting Tubero and Tuditanus (vi. 4), adds some further particulars regarding these tortures.24 [BOOK I. THE CITY OF GOD.disaster has overtaken the city because it has ceased to worship its gods, since, worship them as assiduously as it may, itmay yet be as unfortunate as Regulus was? Or will someone carry so wonderful a blindness to the extent of wildlyattempting, in the face of the evident truth, to contend thatthough one man might be unfortunate, though a worshipper ofthe gods, yet a whole city could not be so?That is to say,the power of their gods is better adapted to preserve multitudes than individuals, —as if a multitude were not composedof individuals.But if they say that M. Regulus, even while a prisonerand enduring these bodily torments, might yet enjoy theblessedness of a virtuous soul,' then let them recognise thattrue virtue by which a city also may be blessed. For theblessedness of a community and of an individual flow fromthe same source; for a community is nothing else than aharmonious collection of individuals. So that I am not concerned meantime to discuss what kind of virtue Reguluspossessed enough, that by his very noble example they areforced to own that the gods are to be worshipped not for thesake of bodily comforts or external advantages; for he preferred to lose all such things rather than offend the gods bywhom he had sworn. But what can we make of men whoglory in having such a citizen, but dread having a city likehim? If they do not dread this, then let them acknowledgethat some such calamity as befell Regulus may also befall acommunity, though they be worshipping their gods as diligently as he; and let them no longer throw the blame oftheir misfortunes on Christianity. But as our present concern is with those Christians who were taken prisoners, letthose who take occasion from this calamity to revile our mostwholesome religion in a fashion not less imprudent than impudent, consider this and hold their peace; for if it was noreproach to their gods that a most punctilious worshipper oftheirs should, for the sake of keeping his oath to them, bedeprived of his native land without hope of finding another,and fall into the hands of his enemies, and be put to deathby a long-drawn and exquisite torture, much less ought the' As the Stoics generally would affirm.BOOK I. ] OF THE VIRGINS WHO WERE VIOLATED. 25Christian name to be charged with the captivity of those whobelieve in its power, since they, in confident expectation of aheavenly country, know that they are pilgrims even in theirown homes.16. Ofthe violation ofthe consecrated and other Christian virgins to which theywere subjected in captivity, and to which their own will gave no consent;and whether this contaminated their souls.But they fancy they bring a conclusive charge againstChristianity, when they aggravate the horror of captivity byadding that not only wives and unmarried maidens, but evenconsecrated virgins, were violated. But truly, with respect tothis, it is not Christian faith, nor piety, nor even the virtueof chastity, which is hemmed into any difficulty: the onlydifficulty is so to treat the subject as to satisfy at once.modesty and reason. And in discussing it we shall not be socareful to reply to our accusers as to comfort our friends.Let this, therefore, in the first place, be laid down as an unassailable position, that the virtue which makes the life goodhas its throne in the soul, and thence rules the members ofthe body, which becomes holy in virtue of the holiness of thewill; and that while the will remains firm and unshaken,nothing that another person does with the body, or upon thebody, is any fault of the person who suffers it, so long as hecannot escape it without sin. But as not only pain may beinflicted, but lust gratified on the body of another, wheneveranything of this latter kind takes place, shame invades even athoroughly pure spirit from which modesty has not departed,-shame, lest that act which could not be suffered withoutsome sensual pleasure, should be believed to have been committed also with some assent of the will.17. Ofsuicide committed through fear ofpunishment or dishonour.And consequently, even if some of these virgins killed themselves to avoid such disgrace, who that has any human feelingwould refuse to forgive them? And as for those who wouldnot put an end to their lives, lest they might seem to escapethe crime of another by a sin of their own, he who lays thisto their charge as a great wickedness is himself not guiltlessof the fault of folly. For if it is not lawful to take the law26 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK I.into our own hands, and slay even a guilty person, whosedeath no public sentence has warranted, then certainly hewho kills himself is a homicide, and so much the guiltier of' his own death, as he was more innocent of that offence forwhich he doomed himself to die. Do we justly execrate thedeed of Judas, and does truth itself pronounce that by hanging himself he rather aggravated than expiated the guilt ofthat most iniquitous betrayal, since, by despairing of God'smercy in his sorrow that wrought death, he left to himself noplace for a healing penitence? How much more ought he toabstain from laying violent hands on himself who has donenothing worthy of such a punishment! For Judas, when hekilled himself, killed a wicked man; but he passed from thislife chargeable not only with the death of Christ, but withhis own: for though he killed himself on account of his crime,his killing himself was another crime. Why, then, should aman who has done no ill do ill to himself, and by killinghimself kill the innocent to escape another's guilty act, andperpetrate upon himself a sin of his own, that the sin ofanother may not be perpetrated on him?18. Ofthe violence which may be done to the body by another's lust, while the mind remains inviolate.But is there a fear that even another's lust may pollutethe violated? It will not pollute, if it be another's: if itpollute, it is not another's, but is shared also by the polluted.But since purity is a virtue of the soul, and has for its companion virtue the fortitude which will rather endure all illsthan consent to evil; and since no one, however magnanimousand pure, has always the disposal of his own body, but cancontrol only the consent and refusal of his will, what saneman can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly madeuse of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses hispurity? For if purity can be thus destroyed, then assuredlypurity is no virtue of the soul; nor can it be numberedamong those good things by which the life is made good, butamong the good things of the body, in the same category asstrength, beauty, sound and unbroken health, and, in short, allsuch good things as may be diminished without at all diminishing the goodness and rectitude of our life. But if purityBOOK I. ] VIRGINITY A PROPERTY OF THE SOUL. 27be nothing better than these, why should the body be perilledthat it may be preserved? If, on the other hand, it belongsto the soul, then not even when the body is violated is itlost. Nay more, the virtue of holy continence, when it resiststhe uncleanness of carnal lust, sanctifies even the body, andtherefore when this continence remains unsubdued, even thesanctity of the body is preserved, because the will to use itholily remains, and, so far as lies in the body itself, the poweralso.For the sanctity of the body does not consist in the integrity of its members, nor in their exemption from all touch;for they are exposed to various accidents which do violence toand wound them, and the surgeons who administer relief oftenperform operations that sicken the spectator. A midwife,suppose, has (whether maliciously or accidentally, or throughunskilfulness) destroyed the virginity of some girl, whileendeavouring to ascertain it: I suppose no one is so foolishas to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of oneorgan, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity.And thus, so long as the soul keeps this firmness of purpose.which sanctifies even the body, the violence done by another'slust makes no impression on this bodily sanctity, which ispreserved intact by one's own persistent continence. Supposea virgin violates the oath she has sworn to God, and goes tomeet her seducer with the intention of yielding to him, shallwe say that as she goes she is possessed even of bodilysanctity, when already she has lost and destroyed that sanctityof soul which sanctifies the body? Far be it from us to somisapply words. Let us rather draw this conclusion, that whilethe sanctity of the soul remains even when the body isviolated, the sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in likemanner, the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity ofthe soul is violated, though the body itself remain intact.And therefore a woman who has been violated by the sin ofanother, and without any consent of her own, has no cause toput herself to death; much less has she cause to commitsuicide in order to avoid such violation, for in that case shecommits certain homicide to prevent a crime which is uncertain as yet, and not her own.For antice of the soul-28 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK L.119. OfLucretia, who put an end to her life because of the outrage done her.This, then, is our position, and it seems sufficiently lucid.We maintain that when a woman is violated while her souladmits no consent to the iniquity, but remains inviolablychaste, the sin is not hers, but his who violates her. But dothey against whom we have to defend not only the souls, butthe sacred bodies too of these outraged Christian captives, —dothey, perhaps, dare to dispute our position? But all know howloudly they extol the purity of Lucretia, that noble matronof ancient Rome. When King Tarquin's son had violatedher body, she made known the wickedness of this youngprofligate to her husband Collatinus, and to Brutus her kinsman, men of high rank and full of courage, and bound themby an oath to avenge it. Then, heart-sick, and unable to bearthe shame, she put an end to her life. What shall we callher? An adulteress, or chaste? There is no question whichshe was. Not more happily than truly did a declaimer say ofthis sad occurrence: " Here was a marvel: there were two,and only one committed adultery." Most forcibly and trulyspoken. For this declaimer, seeing in the union of the twobodies the foul lust of the one, and the chaste will of theother, and giving heed not to the contact of the bodily members, but to the wide diversity of their souls, says: " Therewere two, but the adultery was committed only by one."But how is it, that she who was no partner to the crimebears the heavier punishment of the two? For the adultererwas only banished along with his father; she suffered theextreme penalty. If that was not impurity by which shewas unwillingly ravished, then this is not justice by whichshe, being chaste, is punished. To you I appeal, ye lawsand judges of Rome. Even after the perpetration of greatenormities, you do not suffer the criminal to be slain untried.If, then, one were to bring to your bar this case, and were toprove to you that a woman not only untried, but chaste andinnocent, had been killed, would you not visit the murdererwith punishment proportionably severe? This crime wascommitted by Lucretia; that Lucretia so celebrated andlauded slew the innocent, chaste, outraged Lucretia. Pronounce sentence. But if you cannot, because there does notBOOK I.]LUCRETIA. 29compear any one whom you can punish, why do you extolwith such unmeasured laudation her who slew an innocentand chaste woman? Assuredly you will find it impossibleto defend her before the judges of the realms below, if they besuch as your poets are fond of representing them; for she isamong those"Who guiltless sent themselves to doom,And all for loathing of the day,In madness threw their lives away. "And if she with the others wishes to return," Fate bars the way: around their keepThe slow unlovely waters creep,And bind with ninefold chain. "1Or perhaps she is not there, because she slew herself conscious of guilt, not of innocence? She herself alone knowsher reason; but what if she was betrayed by the pleasureof the act, and gave some consent to Sextus, though so violently abusing her, and then was so affected with remorse,that she thought death alone could expiate her sin? Eventhough this were the case, she ought still to have held herhand from suicide, if she could with her false gods haveaccomplished a fruitful repentance. However, if such werethe state of the case, and if it were false that there were two,but one only committed adultery; if the truth were that bothwere involved in it, one by open assault, the other by secretconsent, then she did not kill an innocent woman; and therefore her erudite defenders may maintain that she is notamong that class of the dwellers below " who guiltless sentthemselves to doom." But this case of Lucretia is in such adilemma, that if you extenuate the homicide, you confirm theadultery: if you acquit her of adultery, you make the chargeof homicide heavier; and there is no way out of the dilemma,when one asks, If she was adulterous, why praise her? ifchaste, why slay her?Nevertheless, for our purpose of refuting those who areunable to comprehend what true sanctity is, and who thereforeinsult over our outraged Christian women, it is enough that inthe instance of this noble Roman matron it was said in her1 Virgil, Æneid, vi. 434.30 [ BOOK I. THE CITY OF GOD.praise, " There were two, but the adultery was the crimeof only one." For Lucretia was confidently believed to besuperior to the contamination of any consenting thought tothe adultery. And accordingly, since she killed herself forbeing subjected to an outrage in which she had no guiltypart, it is obvious that this act of hers was prompted not bythe love of purity, but by the overwhelming burden of hershame. She was ashamed that so foul a crime had been perpetrated upon her, though without her abetting; and thismatron, with the Roman love of glory in her veins, wasseized with a proud dread that, if she continued to live, itwould be supposed she willingly did not resent the wrongwors he resolm that had been done her. She could not exhibit to men herthe motive into conscience, but she judged that her self- inflicted punishmentpride? would testify her state of mind; and she burned with shameat the thought that her patient endurance of the foul affrontthat another had done her, should be construed into complicitywith him. Not such was the decision of the Christian womenwho suffered as she did, and yet survive. They declined toavenge upon themselves the guilt of others, and so add crimesof their own to those crimes in which they had no share.For this they would have done had their shame driven themto homicide, as the lust of their enemies had driven themto adultery. Within their own souls, in the witness of,their own conscience, they enjoy the glory of chastity. Inthehe sight of God, too, they are esteemed pure, and this contents them; they ask no more: it suffices them to haveopportunity of doing good, and they decline to evade thedistress of human suspicion, lest they thereby deviate fromthe divine law.尊20. That Christians have no authorityfor committing suicide in any circumstances whatever.It is not without significance, that in no passage of theholy canonical books there can be found either divine preceptor permission to take away our own life, whether for the sakeof entering on the enjoyment of immortality, or of shunning,or ridding ourselves of anything whatever. Nay, the law,rightly interpreted, even prohibits suicide, where it says,"Thou shalt not kill." This is proved specially by the1BOOK I.]IS SUICIDE JUSTIFIABLE? 31omission of the words " thy neighbour," which are insertedwhen false witness is forbidden: " Thou shalt not bear falsewitness against thy neighbour." Nor yet should any one onthis account suppose he has not broken this commandment ifhe has borne false witness only against himself. For the loveof our neighbour is regulated by the love of ourselves, as it iswritten, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." If,then,he who makes false statements about himself is not less guiltyof bearing false witness than if he had made them to the injuryof his neighbour; although in the commandment prohibitingfalse witness only his neighbour is mentioned, and personstaking no pains to understand it might suppose that a manwas allowed to be a false witness to his own hurt; how muchgreater reason have we to understand that a man may notkill himself, since in the commandment, " Thou shalt not kill,"there is no limitation added nor any exception made in favourof any one, and least of all in favour of him on whom thecommand is laid! And so some attempt to extend this command even to beasts and cattle, as if it forbade us to take lifefrom any creature. But if so, why not extend it also to theplants, and all that is rooted in and nourished by the earth?For though this class of creatures have no sensation, yet theyalso are said to live, and consequently they can die; and therefore, if violence be done them, can be killed. So, too, theapostle, when speaking of the seeds of such things as these,says, " That which thou sowest is not quickened except itdie; " and in the Psalm it is said, " He killed their vines withhail." Must we therefore reckon it a breaking of this com-.mandment, “ Thou shalt not kill," to pull a flower?Are wethus insanely to countenance the foolish error of the Manichæans? Putting aside, then, these ravings, if, when we say,Thou shalt not kill, we do not understand this of the plants,since they have no sensation, nor of the irrational animalsthat fly, swim, walk, or creep, since they are dissociated fromus by their want of reason, and are therefore by the justappointment of the Creator subjected to us to kill or keepalive for our own uses; if so, then it remains that we understand that commandment simply of man. The commandmentis, " Thou shalt not kill man; " therefore neither another nor32 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK I. .1.yourself, for he who kills himself still kills nothing else thanman.21. Ofthe cases in which we may put men to death without incurring the guilt ofmurder.However, there are some exceptions made by the divineauthority to its own law, that men may not be put to death.These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by ageneral law, or by a special commission granted for a time tosome individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of himwho uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals.And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience tothe divine command, or in conformity with His laws haverepresented in their persons the public justice or the wisdomof government, and in this capacity have put to death wickedmen; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, " Thou shalt not kill." Abraham indeed was not merelydeemed guiltless of cruelty, but was even applauded for hispiety, because he was ready to slay his son in obedience toGod, not to his own passion. And it is reasonably enoughmade a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been incompliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his2. daughter, because she met him when he had vowed that hewould sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returnedvictorious from battle. Samson, too, who drew down thehouse on himself and his foes together, is justified only on 3.this ground, that the Spirit who wrought wonders by him.had given him secret instructions to do this. With the exception, then, of these two classes of cases, which are justifiedeither by a just law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God Himself, the fountain of all justice, whoeverkills a man, either himself or another, is implicated in theguilt of murder.22. That suicide can never be prompted by magnanimity.But they who have laid violent hands on themselves areperhaps to be admired for their greatness of soul, though theycannot be applauded for the soundness of their judgment.However, if you look at the matter more closely, you willscarcely call it greatness of soul, which prompts a man to killBOOK I.]SUICIDE COWARDLY. 33himself rather than bear up against some hardships of fortune,or sins in which he is not implicated. Is it not rather proofof a feeble mind, to be unable to bear either the pains ofbodily servitude or the foolish opinion of the vulgar? Andis not that to be pronounced the greater mind, which ratherfaces than flees the ills of life, and which, in comparison ofthe light and purity of conscience, holds in small esteem thejudgment of men, and specially of the vulgar, which is frequentlyinvolved in a mist of error? And, therefore, if suicide is to beesteemed a magnanimous act, none can take higher rank formagnanimity than that Cleombrotus, who (as the story goes) ,when he had read Plato's book in which he treats of theimmortality of the soul, threw himself from a wall, and sopassed from this life to that which he believed to be better.For he was not hard pressed by calamity, nor by any accusation, false or true, which he could not very well have liveddown there was, in short, no motive but only magnanimityurging him to seek death, and break away from the sweetdetention of this life. And yet that this was a magnanimousrather than a justifiable action, Plato himself, whom he hadread, would have told him; for he would certainly have beenforward to commit, or at least to recommend suicide, had notthe same bright intellect which saw that the soul was immortal, discerned also that to seek immortality by suicide wasto be prohibited rather than encouraged.Again, it is said many have killed themselves to preventan enemy doing so. But we are not inquiring whether it hasbeen done, but whether it ought to have been done. Soundjudgment is to be preferred even to examples, and indeedexamples harmonize with the voice of reason; but not allexamples, but those only which are distinguished by theirpiety, and are proportionately worthy of imitation. Forsuicide we cannot cite the example of patriarchs, prophets, orapostles; though our Lord Jesus Christ, when He admonishedthem to flee from city to city if they were persecuted, might'very well have taken that occasion to advise them to layviolent hands on themselves, and so escape their persecutors.But seeing He did not do this, nor proposed this mode ofdeparting this life, though He were addressing His ownVOL. I. C34 THE [ BOOK I. CITY OF GOD.•friends for whom He had promised to prepare everlastingmansions, it is obvious that such examples as are producedfrom the " nations that forget God," give no warrant of imitation to the worshippers of the one true God.23. What we are to think ofthe example ofCato, who slew himself because unable to endure Cæsar's victory.Besides Lucretia, of whom enough has already been said,our advocates of suicide have some difficulty in finding anyother prescriptive example, unless it be that of Cato, whokilled himself at Utica. His example is appealed to, notbecause he was the only man who did so, but because he wasso esteemed as a learned and excellent man, that it couldplausibly be maintained that what he did was and is a goodthing to do. But of this action of his, what can I say butthat his own friends, enlightened men as he, prudently dissuaded him, and therefore judged his act to be that of a feeblerather than a strong spirit, and dictated not by honourablefeeling forestalling shame, but by weakness shrinking fromhardships? Indeed, Cato condemns himself by the advice hegave to his dearly loved son. For if it was a disgrace to liveunder Cæsar's rule, why did the father urge the son to thisdisgrace, by encouraging him to trust absolutely to Cæsar'sgenerosity? Why did he not persuade him to die alongwith himself? If Torquatus was applauded for puttinghis son to death, when contrary to orders he had engaged,and engaged successfully, with the enemy, why did conquered Cato spare his conquered son, though he did not sparehimself? Was it more disgraceful to be a victor contrary toorders, than to submit to a victor contrary to the receivedideas of honour? Cato, then, cannot have deemed it to beshameful to live under Cæsar's rule; for had he done so, thefather's sword would have delivered his son from this disgrace.The truth is, that his son, whom he both hoped and desiredwould be spared by Cæsar, was not more loved by him thanCæsar was envied the glory of pardoning him (as indeedCæsar himself is reported to have said ¹ ); or if envy is toostrong a word, let us say he was ashamed that this glory shouldbe his.1 Plutarch's Life ofCato, 72.BOOK I. ]EXAMPLE OF REGULUS. 35→ Subject ofLecture:24. Thatin that virtue in which Regulus excels Cato, Christians arepre-eminently distinguished. XOur opponents are offended at our preferring to Cato thesaintly Job, who endured dreadful evils in his body ratherthan deliver himself from all torment by self-inflicted death;or other saints, of whom it is recorded in our authoritativeand trustworthy books that they bore captivity and the oppression of their enemies rather than commit suicide. But theirown books authorize us to prefer to Marcus Cato, MarcusRegulus. For Cato had never conquered Cæsar; and whenconquered by him, disdained to submit himself to him, andthat he might escape this submission put himself to death.Regulus, on the contrary, had formerly conquered the Carthaginians, and in command of the army of Rome had won forthe Roman republic a victory which no citizen could bewail,and which the enemy himself was constrained to admire; yetafterwards, when he in his turn was defeated by them, he preferred to be their captive rather than to put himself beyondtheir reach by suicide. Patient under the domination of theCarthaginians, and constant in his love of the Romans, heneither deprived the one of his conquered body, nor the otherof his unconquered spirit. Neither was it love of life thatprevented him from killing himself. This was plainly enoughindicated by his unhesitatingly returning, on account of hispromise and oath, to the same enemies whom he had moregrievously provoked by his words in the senate than evenby his arms in battle. Having such a contempt of life, andpreferring to end it by whatever torments excited enemiesmight contrive, rather than terminate it by his own hand,he could not more distinctly have declared how great a crimehe judged suicide to be. Among all their famous and remarkable citizens, the Romans have no better man to boast of thanthis, who was neither corrupted by prosperity, for he remaineda very poor man after winning such victories; nor broken byadversity, for he returned intrepidly to the most miserableend. But if the bravest and most renowned heroes, who hadbut an earthly country to defend, and who, though they hadbut false gods, yet rendered them a true worship, and carefully kept their oath to them; if these men, who by the custom36 [BOOK I. THE CITY OF GOD.and right of war put conquered enemies to the sword, yetshrank from putting an end to their own lives even whenconquered by their enemies; if, though they had no fear atall of death, they would yet rather suffer slavery than commitsuicide, how much rather must Christians, the worshippers ofthe true God, the aspirants to a heavenly citizenship, shrinkfrom this act, if in God's providence they have been for aseason delivered into the hands of their enemies to prove orto correct them! And, certainly, Christians subjected to thishumiliating condition will not be deserted by the Most High,who for their sakes humbled Himself. Neither should theyforget that they are bound by no laws of war, nor militaryorders, to put even a conquered enemy to the sword; and ifa man may not put to death the enemy who has sinned, ormay yet sin against him, who is so infatuated as to maintainthat he may kill himself because an enemy has sinned, or isgoing to sin, against him?25. That we should not endeavour by sin to obviate sin.But, we are told, there is ground to fear that, when thebody is subjected to the enemy's lust, the insidious pleasureof sense may entice the soul to consent to the sin, and stepsmust be taken to prevent so disastrous a result. And is notsuicide the proper mode of preventing not only the enemy'ssin, but the sin of the Christian so allured? Now, in thefirst place, the soul which is led by God and His wisdom,rather than by bodily concupiscence, will certainly never consent to the desire aroused in its own flesh by another's lust.And, at all events, if it be true, as the truth plainly declares,that suicide is a detestable and damnable wickedness, who issuch a fool as to say, Let us sin now, that we may obviate apossible future sin; let us now commit murder, lest we perhaps afterwards should commit adultery? If we are so controlled by iniquity that innocence is out of the question, andwe can at best but make a choice of sins, is not a future anduncertain adultery preferable to a present and certain murder?Is it not better to commit a wickedness which penitence mayheal, than a crime which leaves no place for healing contrition? I say this for the sake of those men or women whofear they may be enticed into consenting to their violator'sBOOK I. ] SUICIDE OF VIRGINS FEARING VIOLATION. 37lust, and think they should lay violent hands on themselves,and so prevent, not another's sin, but their own. But far beit from the mind of a Christian confiding in God, and restingin the hope of His aid; far be it, I say, from such a mindto yield a shameful consent to pleasures of the flesh, howsoever presented. And if that lustful disobedience, whichstill dwells in our mortal members, follows its own law irrespective of our will, surely its motions in the body of onewho rebels against them are as blameless as its motions inthe body of one who sleeps.26. That in certain peculiar cases the examples of the saints are not to befollowed.But, they say, in the time of persecution some holy womenescaped those who menaced them with outrage, by castingthemselves into rivers which they knew would drown them;and having died in this manner, they are venerated in thechurch catholic as martyrs. Of such persons I do not presume to speak rashly. I cannot tell whether there may nothave been vouchsafed to the church some divine authority,proved by trustworthy evidences, for so honouring their memory:it may be that it is so. It may be they were not deceived byhuman judgment, but prompted by divine wisdom, to theiract of self-destruction. We know that this was the casewith Samson. And when God enjoins any act, and intimatesby plain evidence that He has enjoined it, who will call 'obedience criminal? Who will accuse so religious a submission? But then every man is not justified in sacrificing hisson to God, because Abraham was commendable in so doing.The soldier who has slain a man in obedience to the authority under which he is lawfully commissioned, is not accusedof murder by any law of his state; nay, if he has not slainhim, it is then he is accused of treason to the state, and ofdespising the law. But if he has been acting on his ownauthority, and at his own impulse, he has in this caseincurred the crime of shedding human blood. And thushe is punished for doing without orders the very thing heis punished for neglecting to do when he has been ordered.If the commands of a general make so great a difference, shallthe commands of God make none? He, then, who knows it38 [BOOK I. THE CITY OF GOD.1is unlawful to kill himself, may nevertheless do so if he isordered by Him whose commands we may not neglect. Onlylet him be very sure that the divine command has beensignified. As for us, we can become privy to the secretsof conscience only in so far as these are disclosed to us, andso far only do we judge: " No one knoweth the things of aman, save the spirit of man which is in him."¹ But this weaffirm, this we maintain, this we every way pronounce to beright, that no man ought to inflict on himself voluntary death,for this is to escape the ills of time by plunging into those ofeternity; that no man ought to do so on account of anotherman's sins, for this were to escape a guilt which could notpollute him, by incurring great guilt of his own; that no manSought to do so on account of his own past sins, for he has allthe more need of this life that these sins may be healed byrepentance; that no man should put an end to this life toobtain that better life we look for after death, for those whodie by their own hand have no better life after death.2427. Whether voluntary death should be sought in order to avoid sin.There remains one reason for suicide which I mentionedbefore, and which is thought a sound one,-namely, to preventone's falling into sin either through the blandishments ofpleasure or the violence of pain. If this reason were a goodone, then we should be impelled to exhort men at once todestroy themselves, as soon as they have been washed in thelaver of regeneration, and have received the forgiveness of allsin. Then is the time to escape all future sin, when all pastsin is blotted out. And if this escape be lawfully secured bysuicide, why not then specially? Why does any baptized person hold his hand from taking his own life? Why does anyperson who is freed from the hazards of this life again exposehimself to them, when he has power so easily to rid himselfof them all, and when it is written, " He who loveth dangershall fall into it?" Why does he love, or at least face, somany serious dangers, by remaining in this life from whichhe may legitimately depart? But is any one so blinded andtwisted in his moral nature, and so far astray from the truth,11 Cor. ii. 11. 2 Ecclus. iii. 27.BOOK I. ] SUICIDE UNJUSTIFIABLE. 39as to think that, though a man ought to make away with himself for fear of being led into sin by the oppression of oneman, his master, he ought yet to live, and so expose himselfto the hourly temptations of this world, both to all thoseevils which the oppression of one master involves, and tonumberless other miseries in which this life inevitably implicates us? What reason, then, is there for our consuming timein those exhortations by which we seek to animate the baptized, either to virginal chastity, or vidual continence, ormatrimonial fidelity, when we have so much more simpleand compendious a method of deliverance from sin, by persuading those who are fresh from baptism to put an end totheir lives, and so pass to their Lord pure and well- conditioned?If any one thinks that such persuasion should be attempted, Isay not he is foolish, but mad. With what face, then, can hesay to any man, " Kill yourself, lest to your small sins youadd a heinous sin, while you live under an unchaste master,whose conduct is that of a barbarian?" How can he say this,if he cannot without wickedness say, " Kill yourself, now thatyou are washed from all your sins, lest you fall again intosimilar or even aggravated sins, while you live in a worldwhich has such power to allure by its unclean pleasures, totorment by its horrible cruelties, to overcome by its errorsand terrors?" It is wicked to say this; it is therefore wickedto kill oneself. For if there could be any just cause ofsuicide, this were so. And since not even this is so, there isnone.28. By whatjudgment of God the enemy was permitted to indulge his lust on thebodies ofcontinent Christians.Let not your life, then, be a burden to you, ye faithful servants of Christ, though your chastity was made the sportof your enemies. You have a grand and true consolation, ifyou maintain a good conscience, and know that you did not.consent to the sins of those who were permitted to commitsinful outrage upon you. And if you should ask why thispermission was granted, indeed it is a deep providence of theCreator and Governor of the world; and " unsearchable are Hisjudgments, and His ways past finding out." Nevertheless,1 Rom. xi. 33.140 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK I. .faithfully interrogate your own souls, whether ye have notbeen unduly puffed up by your integrity, and continence, andchastity; and whether ye have not been so desirous of thehuman praise that is accorded to these virtues, that ye haveenvied some who possessed them. I, for my part, do notknow your hearts, and therefore I make no accusation; I donot even hear what your hearts answer when you questionthem. And yet, if they answer that it is as I have supposedit might be, do not marvel that you have lost that by whichyou can win men's praise, and retain that which cannot beexhibited to men. If you did not consent to sin, it wasbecause God added His aid to His grace that it might notbe lost, and because shame before men succeeded to humanglory that it might not be loved. But in both respects eventhe fainthearted among you have a consolation, approved bythe one experience, chastened by the other; justified by theone, corrected by the other. As to those whose hearts, wheninterrogated, reply that they have never been proud of thevirtue of virginity, widowhood, or matrimonial chastity, but,condescending to those of low estate, rejoiced with tremblingin these gifts of God, and that they have never envied anyone the like excellences of sanctity and purity, but rosesuperior to human applause, which is wont to be abundant inproportion to the rarity of the virtue applauded, and ratherdesired that their own number be increased, than that by thesmallness of their numbers each of them should be conspicuous;—even such faithful women, I say, must not complainthat permission was given to the barbarians so grossly tooutrage them; nor must they allow themselves to believe thatGod overlooked their character when He permitted acts whichno one with impunity commits. For some most flagrant andwicked desires are allowed free play at present by the secretjudgment of God, and are reserved to the public and finaljudgment. Moreover, it is possible that those Christianwomen, who are unconscious of any undue pride on accountof their virtuous chastity, whereby they sinlessly suffered theviolence of their captors, had yet some lurking infirmity whichmight have betrayed them into a proud and contemptuousbearing, had they not been subjected to the humiliation thatBOOK I. ] CONSOLATION OF VIOLATED VIRGINS. 41befell them in the taking of the city. As, therefore, somemen were removed by death, that no wickedness might changetheir disposition, so these women were outraged lest prosperityshould corrupt their modesty. Neither those women, then,who were already puffed up by the circumstance that theywere still virgins, nor those who might have been so puffedup had they not been exposed to the violence of the enemy,lost their chastity, but rather gained humility: the formerwere saved from pride already cherished, the latter from pridethat would shortly have grown upon them.We must further notice that some of those sufferers mayhave conceived that continence is a bodily good, and abidesso long as the body is inviolate, and did not understand thatthe purity both of the body and the soul rests on the stedfastness of the will strengthened by God's grace, and cannotbe forcibly taken from an unwilling person. From this errorthey are probably now delivered. For when they reflect howconscientiously they served God, and when they settle againto the firm persuasion that He can in nowise desert thosewho so serve Him, and so invoke His aid; and when theyconsider, what they cannot doubt, how pleasing to Him ischastity, they are shut up to the conclusion that He couldnever have permitted these disasters to befall His saints, if bythem that saintliness could be destroyed which He Himselfhad bestowed upon them, and delights to see in them.29. What the servants of Christ should say in reply to the unbelievers who cast intheir teeth that Christ did not rescue themfrom the fury oftheir enemies.The whole family of God, most high and most true, hastherefore a consolation of its own, —a consolation which cannotdeceive, and which has in it a surer hope than the totteringand falling affairs of earth can afford. They will not refusethe discipline of this temporal life, in which they are schooledfor life eternal; nor will they lament their experience of it,for the good things of earth they use as pilgrims who are notdetained by them, and its ills either prove or improve them.As for those who insult over them in their trials, and whenills befall them say, " Where is thy God?" we may ask themwhere their gods are when they suffer the very calamities for1 Ps. xlii. 10.42 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK I. .the sake of avoiding which they worship their gods, or maintain they ought to be worshipped; for the family of Christ isfurnished with its reply: our God is everywhere present,wholly everywhere; not confined to any place. He can bepresent unperceived, and be absent without moving; whenHe exposes us to adversities, it is either to prove our perfections or correct our imperfections; and in return for ourpatient endurance of the sufferings of time, He reserves for usan everlasting reward. But who are you, that we shoulddeign to speak with you even about your own gods, muchless about our God, who is " to be feared above all gods? Forall the gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord made theheavens. "130. That those who complain ofChristianity really desire to live without restraint in shameful luxury.If the famous Scipio Nasica were now alive, who was onceyour pontiff, and was unanimously chosen by the senate,when, in the panic created by the Punic war, they sought forthe best citizen to entertain the Phrygian goddess, he wouldcurb this shamelessness of yours, though you would perhapsscarcely dare to look upon the countenance of such a man.For why in your calamities do you complain of Christianity,unless because you desire to enjoy your luxurious licenceunrestrained, and to lead an abandoned and profligate lifewithout the interruption of any uneasiness or disaster? Forcertainly your desire for peace, and prosperity, and plenty isnot prompted by any purpose of using these blessings honestly,that is to say, with moderation, sobriety, temperance, andpiety; for your purpose rather is to run riot in an endlessvariety of sottish pleasures, and thus to generate from yourprosperity a moral pestilence which will prove a thousandfold more disastrous than the fiercest enemies. It was sucha calamity as this that Scipio, your chief pontiff, your bestman in the judgment of the whole senate, feared when he refused to agree to the destruction of Carthage, Rome's rival;and opposed Cato, who advised its destruction. He fearedsecurity, that enemy of weak minds, and he perceived that awholesome fear would be a fit guardian for the citizens.1 Ps. xcvi. 4, 5.AndBOOK I.]SCIPIO'S FEAR OF PROSPERITY. 43he was not mistaken: the event proved how wisely he hadspoken. For when Carthage was destroyed, and the Romanrepublic delivered from its great cause of anxiety, a crowdof disastrous evils forthwith resulted from the prosperouscondition of things. First concord was weakened, and destroyed by fierce and bloody seditions; then followed, by aconcatenation of baleful causes, civil wars, which brought intheir train such massacres, such bloodshed, such lawless andcruel proscription and plunder, that those Romans who, in thedays of their virtue, had expected injury only at the hands oftheir enemies, now that their virtue was lost, suffered greatercruelties at the hands of their fellow-citizens. The lust ofrule, which with other vices existed among the Romans inmore unmitigated intensity than among any other people, afterit had taken possession of the more powerful few, subduedunder its yoke the rest, worn and wearied.31. By what steps the passion for governing increased among the Romans.For at what stage would that passion rest when once ithas lodged in a proud spirit, until by a succession of advancesit has reached even the throne? And to obtain such advancesnothing avails but unscrupulous ambition. But unscrupulousambition has nothing to work upon, save in a nation corruptedby avarice and luxury. Moreover, a people becomes avariciousand luxurious by prosperity; and it was this which that veryprudent man Nasica was endeavouring to avoid when heopposed the destruction of the greatest, strongest, wealthiestcity of Rome's enemy. He thought that thus fear would act asa curb on lust, and that lust being curbed would not run riotin luxury, and that luxury being prevented avarice would beat an end; and that these vices being banished, virtue wouldflourish and increase, to the great profit of the state; andliberty, the fit companion of virtue, would abide unfettered.For similar reasons, and animated by the same consideratepatriotism, that same chief pontiff of yours-I still refer tohim who was adjudged Rome's best man without one dissentient voice-threw cold water on the proposal of the senateto build a circle of seats round the theatre, and in a veryweighty speech warned them against allowing the luxurious44 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK I.manners of Greece to sap the Roman manliness, and persuaded them not to yield to the enervating and emasculatinginfluence of foreign licentiousness. So authoritative andforcible were his words, that the senate was moved to prohibit the use even of those benches which hitherto had beencustomarily brought to the theatre for the temporary use ofthe citizens. 1 How eagerly would such a man as this havebanished from Rome the scenic exhibitions themselves, hadhe dared to oppose the authority of those whom he supposedto be gods! For he did not know that they were maliciousdevils; or if he did, he supposed they should rather be propitiated than despised. For there had not yet been revealed tothe Gentiles the heavenly doctrine which should purify theirhearts by faith, and transform their natural disposition byhumble godliness, and turn them from the service of prouddevils to seek the things that are in heaven, or even abovethe heavens.32. Ofthe establishment ofscenic entertainments.Know then, ye who are ignorant of this, and ye who feignignorance be reminded, while you murmur against Him whohas freed you from such rulers, that the scenic games, exhibitions of shameless folly and licence, were established atRome, not by men's vicious cravings, but by the appointmentof your gods. Much more pardonably might you haverendered divine honours to Scipio than to such gods as these.The gods were not so moral as their pontiff. But give menow your attention, if your mind, inebriated by its deep potations of error, can take in any sober truth. The gods enjoinedthat games be exhibited in their honour to stay a physicalpestilence; their pontiff prohibited the theatre from being constructed, to prevent a moral pestilence. If, then, there remainsin you sufficient mental enlightenment to prefer the soul tothe body, choose whom you will worship. Besides, thoughthe pestilence was stayed, this was not because the voluptuousmadness of stage-plays had taken possession of a warlikepeople hitherto accustomed only to the games of the circus;but these astute and wicked spirits, foreseeing that in due1 Originally the spectators had to stand, and now (according to Livy, Ep.xlviii. ) the old custom was restored.of+Power . Sen kare. 157.miriale . Farar .InE his auttons).BOOK I. ]Prosperity= = material & intrikretual .ROME RUINED BY SUCCESS. 45course the pestilence would shortly cease, took occasion toinfect, not the bodies, but the morals of their worshippers, witha far more serious disease. And in this pestilence these godsfind great enjoyment, because it benighted the minds of menwith so gross a darkness, and dishonoured them with so foula deformity, that even quite recently (will posterity be able tocredit it?) some of those who fled from the sack of Rome andfound refuge in Carthage, were so infected with this disease,that day after day they seemed to contend with one anotherwho should most madly run after the actors in the theatres.X33. That the overthrow ofRome has not corrected the vices of the Romans.Oh infatuated men, what is this blindness, or rather madness,which possesses you? How is it that while, as we hear, eventhe eastern nations are bewailing your ruin, and while powerful states in the most remote parts of the earth are mourningyour fall as a public calamity, ye yourselves should be crowding to the theatres, should be pouring into them and fillingthem; and, in short, be playing a madder part now than everbefore? This was the foul plague- spot, this the wreck ofvirtue and honour that Scipio sought to preserve you fromwhen he prohibited the construction of theatres; this was hisreason for desiring that you might still have an enemy to fear,seeing as he did how easily prosperity would corrupt anddestroy you. He did not consider that republic flourishingwhose walls stand, but whose morals are in ruins. But theseductions of evil-minded devils had more influence with youthan the precautions of prudent men. Hence the injuriesyou do, you will not permit to be imputed to you; but theinjuries you suffer, you impute to Christianity. Depraved bygood fortune, and not chastened by adversity, what you desirein the restoration of a peaceful and secure state, is not thetranquillity of the commonwealth, but the impunity of yourown vicious luxury. Scipio wished you to be hard pressedby an enemy, that you might not abandon yourselves to luxurious manners; but so abandoned are you, that not evenwhen crushed by the enemy is your luxury repressed. Youhave missed the profit of your calamity; you have been mademost wretched, and have remained most profligate.46 THE [ BOOK I. CITY OF GOD.34. OfGod's clemency in moderating the ruin ofthe city.And that you are yet alive is due to God, who spares youthat you may be admonished to repent and reform your lives.It is He who has permitted you, ungrateful as you are, to escapethe sword of the enemy, by calling yourselves His servants,or by finding asylum in the sacred places of the martyrs.It is said that Romulus and Remus, in order to increasethe population of the city they founded, opened a sanctuaryin which every man might find asylum and absolution of allcrime, a remarkable foreshadowing of what has recentlyoccurred in honour of Christ. The destroyers of Rome followed the example of its founders. But it was not greatlyto their credit that the latter, for the sake of increasing thenumber of their citizens, did that which the former have done,lest the number of their enemies should be diminished.35. Ofthe sons ofthe church who are hidden among the wicked, and offalse Christians within the church.Let these and similar answers (if any fuller and fitter answerscan be found) be given to their enemies by the redeemed familyof the Lord Christ, and by the pilgrim city of King Christ.But let this city bear in mind, that among her enemies lie hidthose who are destined to be fellow-citizens, that she maynot think it a fruitless labour to bear what they inflict asenemies until they become confessors of the faith. So, too,as long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God hasin her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, somewho shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints. Ofthese, some are not now recognised; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause withour enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramentalbadge they wear. These men you may to-day see thronging the churches with us, to-morrow crowding the theatreswith the godless. But we have the less reason to despair ofthe reclamation even of such persons, if among our mostdeclared enemies there are now some, unknown to themselves,who are destined to become our friends. In truth, these twocities are entangled together in this world, and intermixeduntil the last judgment effect their separation. I now proceedto speak, as God shall help me, of the rise, progress, and endBOOK L]CONCLUSION. 47of these two cities; and what I write, I write for the glory ofthe city of God, that, being placed in comparison with theother, it may shine with a brighter lustre.36. What subjects are to be handled in the following discourse.But I have still some things to say in confutation of thosewho refer the disasters of the Roman republic to our religion,because it prohibits the offering of sacrifices to the gods. Forthis end I must recount all, or as many as may seem sufficient,of the disasters which befell that city and its subject provinces,before these sacrifices were prohibited; for all these disastersthey would doubtless have attributed to us, if at that time ourreligion had shed its light upon them, and had prohibited theirsacrifices. I must then go on to show what social well-beingthe true God, in whose hand are all kingdoms, vouchsafed togrant to them that their empire might increase. I must showwhy He did so, and how their false gods, instead of at all aidingthem, greatly injured them by guile and deceit. And, lastly, Imust meet those who, when on this point convinced and confuted by irrefragable proofs, endeavour to maintain that theyworship the gods, not hoping for the present advantages of thislife, but for those which are to be enjoyed after death. Andthis, if I am not mistaken, will be the most difficult part of mytask, and will be worthy of the loftiest argument; for we mustthen enter the lists with the philosophers, not the mere common.herd ofphilosophers, but the most renowned, who in many pointsagree with ourselves, as regarding the immortality of the soul,and that the true God created the world, and by His providence rules all He has created. But as they differ from uson other points, we must not shrink from the task of exposingtheir errors, that, having refuted the gainsaying of the wickedwith such ability as God may vouchsafe, we may assert thecity of God, and true piety, and the worship of God, to whichalone the promise of true and everlasting felicity is attached.Here, then, let us conclude, that we may enter on these subjects in a fresh book.48 [ BOOK II.THE CITY OF GOD.BOOK SECOND.ARGUMENT.IN THIS BOOK AUGUSTINE REVIEWS THOSE CALAMITIES WHICH THE ROMANS SUFFERED BEFORE THE TIME OF CHRIST, AND WHILE THE WORSHIP OF THEFALSE GODS WAS UNIVERSALLY PRACTISED; AND DEMONSTRATES THAT, FARFROM BEING PRESERVED FROM MISFORTUNE BY THE GODS, THE ROMANSHAVE BEEN BY THEM OVERWHELMED WITH THE ONLY, OR AT LEAST THEGREATEST, OF ALL CALAMITIES-THE CORRUPTION OF MANNERS, AND THE VICES OF THE SOUL.লGooperTruth= ReallteGivingTwoseasonsfor..orfotingteatte.InoBlindnen.opinionnotIF1. Ofthe limits which must be put to the necessity ofreplying to an adversary.F the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clearevidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesomedoctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained fromGod, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, theywho have just ideas, and express them in suitable language,would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors ofempty conjecture. But this mental infirmity is now moreprevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that evenafter the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man canprove it to man, they hold for the very truth their own unreasonable fancies, either on account of their great blindness,which prevents them from seeing what is plainly set beforethem, or on account of their opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see.There therefore frequently arises a necessity of speaking morefully on those points which are already clear, that we may, asit were, present them not to the eye, but even to the touch,so that they may be felt even by those who close their eyesagainst them. And yet to what end shall we ever bring ourdiscussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if weproceed on the principle that we must always reply to thosewho reply to us? For those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so hardened by the habit of con-BOOK II . ] RECAPITULATION OF BOOK FIRST. 49tradiction, that though they understand they cannot yield tothem, reply to us, and, as it is written, " speak hard things,""and are incorrigibly vain. Now, if we were to propose to confute their objections as often as they with brazen face choseto disregard our arguments, and as often as they could by anymeans contradict our statements, you see how endless, andfruitless, and painful a task we should be undertaking. Andtherefore I do not wish my writings to be judged even by you,my son Marcellinus, nor by any of those others at whose service this work of mine is freely and in all Christian charityput, if at least you intend always to require a reply to everyexception which you hear taken to what you read in it; forso you would become like those silly women of whom theapostle says that they are " always learning, and never ableto come to the knowledge of the truth. " "2. Recapitulation ofthe contents of the first book.In the foregoing book, having begun to speak of the cityof God, to which I have resolved, Heaven helping me, to consecrate the whole of this work, it was my first endeavourto reply to those who attribute the wars by which the worldis being devastated, and specially the recent sack of Romeby the barbarians, to the religion of Christ, which prohibitsthe offering of abominable sacrifices to devils. I haveshown that they ought rather to attribute it to Christ, thatfor His name's sake the barbarians, in contravention of allcustom and law of war, threw open as sanctuaries the largestchurches, and in many instances showed such reverence toChrist, that not only His genuine servants, but even those whoin their terror feigned themselves to be so, were exempted fromall those hardships which by the custom of war may lawfullybe inflicted. Then out of this there arose the question, whywicked and ungrateful men were permitted to share in thesebenefits; and why, too, the hardships and calamities of warwere inflicted on the godly as well as on the ungodly. And ingiving a suitably full answer to this large question, I occupiedsome considerable space, partly that I might relieve theanxieties which disturb many when they observe that theblessings of God, and the common and daily human casualties,1 Ps. xciv. 4. 22 Tim. iii. 7.VOL. LD50 [BOOK II.. THE CITY OF GOD.anduverry8.450mirals.fall to the lot of bad men and good without distinction; butmainly that I might minister some consolation to those holyand chaste women who were outraged by the enemy, in sucha way as to shock their modesty, though not to sully theirpurity, and that I might preserve them from being ashamedof life, though they have no guilt to be ashamed of. Andthen I briefly spoke against those who with a most shamelesswantonness insult over those poor Christians who were subjected to those calamities, and especially over those brokenhearted and humiliated, though chaste and holy women; thesefellows themselves being most depraved and unmanly profligates, quite degenerate from the genuine Romans, whosefamous deeds are abundantly recorded in history, and everywhere celebrated, but who have found in their descendants thegreatest enemies of their glory. In truth, Rome, which wasfounded and increased by the labours of these ancient heroes,was more shamefully ruined by their descendants, while itswalls were still standing, than it is now bythe razing of them.For in this ruin there fell stones and timbers; but in the ruinthose profligates effected, there fell, not the mural, but themoral bulwarks and ornaments of the city, and their heartsburned with passions more destructive than the flames whichconsumed their houses. Thus I brought my first book to aclose. And now I go on to speak of those calamities whichthat city itself, or its subject provinces, have suffered sinceits foundation; all of which they would equally have attributed to the Christian religion, if at that early period thedoctrine of the gospel against their false and deceiving godshad been as largely and freely proclaimed as now.3. That we need only to read history in order to see what calamities the Romanssuffered before the religion of Christ began to compete with the worship ofthe gods.But remember that, in recounting these things, I have stillto address myself to ignorant men; so ignorant, indeed, as togive birth to the common saying, " Drought and Christianitygo hand in hand." There are indeed some among them who1 "Pluvia defit, causa Christiani. " Similar accusations and similar replies maybe seen in the celebrated passage of Tertullian's Apol. c. 40, and in the eloquentexordium of Arnobius, C. Gentes.BOOK II . ] THE GODS ISSUED NO MORAL LAW. 51are thoroughly well educated men, and have a taste for history,in which the things I speak of are open to their observation;but in order to irritate the uneducated masses against us, theyfeign ignorance of these events, and do what they can to makethe vulgar believe that those disasters, which in certain placesand at certain times uniformly befall mankind, are the resultof Christianity, which is being everywhere diffused, and ispossessed of a renown and brilliancy which quite eclipsetheir own gods. Let them then, along with us, call to mindwith what various and repeated disasters the prosperity ofRome was blighted, before ever Christ had come in the flesh,and before His name had been blazoned among the nationswith that glory which they vainly grudge. Let them, if theycan, defend their gods in this article, since they maintainthat they worship them in order to be preserved from thesedisasters, which they now impute to us if they suffer in theleast degree. For why did these gods permit the disastersI am to speak of to fall on their worshippers before thepreaching of Christ's name offended them, and put an end totheir sacrifices?4. That the worshippers ofthe gods never received from them any healthy moralprecepts, and that in celebrating their worship all sorts of impurities werepractised.First of all, we would ask why their gods took no steps toimprove the morals of their worshippers. That the true Godshould neglect those who did not seek His help, that was butjustice; but why did those gods, from whose worship ungrateful men are now complaining that they are prohibited, issueno laws which might have guided their devotees to a virtuouslife? Surely it was but just, that such care as men showedto the worship of the gods, the gods on their part should haveto the conduct of men. But, it is replied, it is by his ownwill a man goes astray. Who denies it? But none the lesswas it incumbent on these gods, who were men's guardians,to publish in plain terms the laws of a good life, and not to1 Augustine is supposed to refer to Symmachus, who similarly accused theChristians in his address to the Emperor Valentinianus in the year 384. AtAugustine's request, Paulus Orosius wrote his history in confutation of Sym- machus' charges.52 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK II. .oraleavere.athenworship.conceal them from their worshippers. It was their part tosend prophets to reach and convict such as broke these laws,and publicly to proclaim the punishments which await evildoers, and the rewards which may be looked for by those thatdo well. Did ever the walls of any of their temples echo toany such warning voice? I myself, when I was a youngman, used sometimes to go to the sacrilegious entertainmentsand spectacles; I saw the priests raving in religious excitement, and heard the choristers; I took pleasure in the shamefulgames which were celebrated in honour of gods and goddesses,of the virgin Cœlestis,' and Berecynthia, the mother of all thegods. And on the holy day consecrated to her purification,there were sung before her couch productions so obscene andfilthy for the ear-I do not say of the mother of the gods, butof the mother of any senator or honest man-nay, so impure,that not even the mother of the foul-mouthed players themselves could have formed one of the audience. For naturalreverence for parents is a bond which the most abandonedcannot ignore. And, accordingly, the lewd actions and filthywords with which these players honoured the mother of thegods, in presence of a vast assemblage and audience of bothsexes, they could not for very shame have rehearsed at homein presence of their own mothers. And the crowds that weregathered from all quarters by curiosity, offended modestymust, I should suppose, have scattered in the confusion ofshame. If these are sacred rites, what is sacrilege? If thisis purification, what is pollution? This festivity was calledthe Tables, as if a banquet were being given at which uncleandevils might find suitable refreshment. For it is not difficult¹ Tertullian (Apol. c. 24) mentions Cœlestis as specially worshipped in Africa.Augustine mentions her again in the 26th chapter of this book, and in other parts of his works.2 Berecynthia is one of the many names of Rhea or Cybele. Livy (xxix. 11 )relates that the image of Cybele was brought to Rome the day before the idesof April, which was accordingly dedicated as her feast-day. The image, itseems, had to be washed in the stream Almon, a tributary of the Tiber, beforebeing placed in the temple of Victory; and each year, as the festival returned, thewashing was repeated with much pomp at the same spot. Hence Lucan's line(i. 600) , ' Et lotam parvo revocant Almone Cybelen, ' and the elegant verses ofOvid, Fast. iv. 337 et seq.</p><ul><li> " Fercula, " dishes, or courses.</li></ul><p>BOOK II . ] OBSCENITIES OF THEIR WORSHIP. 53to see what kind of spirits they must be who are delightedwith such obscenities, unless, indeed, a man be blinded bythese evil spirits passing themselves off under the name ofgods, and either disbelieves in their existence, or leads such alife as prompts him rather to propitiate and fear them than thetrue God.5. Ofthe obscenities practised in honour ofthe mother ofthe gods.In this matter I would prefer to have as my assessors injudgment, not those men who rather take pleasure in theseinfamous customs than take pains to put an end to them, butthat same Scipio Nasica who was chosen by the senate asthe citizen most worthy to receive in his hands the image ofthat demon Cybele, and convey it into the city. He wouldtell us whether he would be proud to see his own motherso highly esteemed by the state as to have divine honoursadjudged to her; as the Greeks and Romans and other nationshave decreed divine honours to men who had been of materialservice to them, and have believed that their mortal benefactors were thus made immortal, and enrolled among thegods.¹ Surely he would desire that his mother should enjoysuch felicity were it possible. But if we proceeded to askhim whether, among the honours paid to her, he would wishsuch shameful rites as these to be celebrated, would he not atonce exclaim that he would rather his mother lay stone-dead,than survive as a goddess to lend her ear to these obscenities?Is it possible that he who was of so severe a morality, thathe used his influence as a Roman senator to prevent thebuilding of a theatre in that city dedicated to the manlyvirtues, would wish his mother to be propitiated as a goddesswith words which would have brought the blush to her cheekwhen a Roman matron? Could he possibly believe that themodesty of an estimable woman would be so transformed byher promotion to divinity, that she would suffer herself to beinvoked and celebrated in terms so gross and immodest, thatif she had heard the like while alive upon earth, and hadlistened without stopping her ears and hurrying from thespot, her relatives, her husband, and her children would have1 See Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 24.54 THE [BOOK II. CITY OF GOD.blushed for her? Therefore, the mother of the gods beingsuch a character as the most profligate man would be ashamedto have for his mother, and meaning to enthral the minds ofthe Romans, demanded for her service their best citizen, notto ripen him still more in virtue by her helpful counsel, butto entangle him by her deceit, like her of whom it is written,"The adulteress will hunt for the precious soul." Her intentwas to puff up this high-souled man by an apparently divinetestimony to his excellence, in order that he might rely uponhis own eminence in virtue, and make no further efforts aftertrue piety and religion, without which natural genius, howeverbrilliant, vapours into pride and comes to nothing. For whatbut a guileful purpose could that goddess demand the bestman, seeing that in her own sacred festivals she requires suchobscenities as the best men would be covered with shame tohear at their own tables?6. That the gods of the pagans never inculcated holiness oflife.This is the reason why those divinities quite neglected thelives and morals of the cities and nations who worshippedthem, and threw no dreadful prohibition in their way tohinder them from becoming utterly corrupt, and to preservethem from those terrible and detestable evils which visit notharvests and vintages, not house and possessions, not the bodywhich is subject to the soul, but the soul itself, the spirit thatrules the whole man. If there was any such prohibition, letit be produced, let it be proved. They will tell us that purityand probity were inculcated upon those who were initiated inthe mysteries of religion, and that secret incitements to virtuewere whispered in the ear of the élite; but this is an idle.boast. Let them show or name to us the places which wereat any time consecrated to assemblages in which, instead ofthe obscene songs and licentious acting of players, instead ofthe celebration of those most filthy and shameless Fugalia'1 Prov. vi. 26.2 Fugalia. Vives is uncertain to what feast Augustine refers. Censorinusunderstands him to refer to a feast celebrating the expulsion of the kings fromRome. This feast, however (celebrated on the 24th February), was commonlycalled " Regifugium. "BOOK II. ] VALUE OF THE MORAL TEACHING OF PHILOSOPHERS. 55(well called Fugalia, since they banish modesty and rightfeeling), the people were commanded in the name of the godsto restrain avarice, bridle impurity, and conquer ambition;where, in short, they might learn in that school which Persiusvehemently lashes them to, when he says: " Be taught, yeabandoned creatures, and ascertain the causes of things; whatwe are, and for what end we are born; what is the law ofour success in life, and by what art we may turn the goalwithout making shipwreck; what limit we should put to ourwealth, what we may lawfully desire, and what uses filthylucre serves; how much we should bestow upon our countryand our family; learn, in short, what God meant thee to be,and what place He has ordered you to fill. " Let them nameto us the places where such instructions were wont to becommunicated from the gods, and where the people who worshipped them were accustomed to resort to hear them, as wecan point to our churches built for this purpose in every landwhere the Christian religion is received.7. That the suggestions of philosophers are precluded from having any moraleffect, because they have not the authority which belongs to divine instruction, and because man's natural bias to evil induces him rather tofollowthe examples of the gods than to obey the precepts ofmen.But will they perhaps remind us of the schools of thephilosophers, and their disputations? In the first place, thesebelong not to Rome, but to Greece; and even if we yield tothem that they are now Roman, because Greece itself hasbecome a Roman province, still the teachings of the philosophers are not the commandments of the gods, but the discoveries of men, who, at the prompting of their own speculativeability, made efforts to discover the hidden laws of nature, andthe right and wrong in ethics, and in dialectic what was consequent according to the rules of logic, and what was inconsequent and erroneous. And some of them, by God's help,made great discoveries; but when left to themselves theywere betrayed by human infirmity, and fell into mistakes. Andthis was ordered by divine providence, that their pride mightbe restrained, and that by their example it might be pointedout that it is humility which has access to the highest regions.1 Persius, Sat. iii. 66-72.56 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK II. .But of this we shall have more to say, if the Lord God oftruth permit, in its own place.¹ However, if the philosophershave made any discoveries which are sufficient to guide mento virtue and blessedness, would it not have been greaterjustice to vote divine honours to them? Were it not moreaccordant with every virtuous sentiment to read Plato's writings in a " Temple of Plato," than to be present in the templesof devils to witness the priests of Cybele2 mutilating themselves, the effeminate being consecrated, the raving fanaticscutting themselves, and whatever other cruel or shameful, orshamefully cruel or cruelly shameful, ceremony is enjoined bythe ritual of such gods as these? Were it not a more suitableeducation, and more likely to prompt the youth to virtue, ifthey heard public recitals of the laws of the gods, instead ofthe vain laudation of the customs and laws of their ancestors?Certainly all the worshippers of the Roman gods, when oncethey are possessed by what Persius calls " the burning poisonof lust," prefer to witness the deeds of Jupiter rather than tohear what Plato taught or Cato censured. Hence the youngprofligate in Terence, when he sees on the wall a fresco representing the fabled descent of Jupiter into the lap of Danaëin the form of a golden shower, accepts this as authoritativeprecedent for his own licentiousness, and boasts that he is animitator of God. "And what God? " he says. "He whowith His thunder shakes the loftiest temples. And was I, apoor creature compared to Him, to make bones of it?I did it, and with all my heart."81 See below, books viii. -xii.4No;2 "Galli, " the castrated priests of Cybele, who were named after the riverGallus, in Phrygia, the water of which was supposed to intoxicate or maddenthose who drank it. According to Vitruvius (viii. 3), there was a similar fountain in Paphlagonia. Apuleius (Golden Ass, viii. ) gives a graphic andhumorous description of the dress, dancing, and imposture of these priests;mentioning, among other things, that they lashed themselves with whips andcut themselves with knives till the ground was wet with blood.3 Persius, Sat. iii. 37.4 Ter. Eun. iii . 5. 36; and cf. the similar allusion in Aristoph. Clouds,1033-4. It may be added that the argument of this chapter was largely usedby the wiser of the heathen themselves. Dionysius Hal. (ii. 20) and Seneca (De Brev. Vit. c. xvi. ) make the very same complaint; and it will be re- membered that his adoption of this reasoning was one of the grounds on which Euripides was suspected of atheism.BOOK II. ] DRAMATIC PLAYS ENJOINED BY THE GODS. 578. That the theatrical exhibitions publishing the shameful actions of the gods,propitiated rather than offended them.But, some one will interpose, these are the fables of poets,not the deliverances of the gods themselves. Well, I haveno mind to arbitrate between the lewdness of theatrical entertainments and of mystic rites; only this I say, and historybears me out in making the assertion, that those same entertainments, in which the fictions of poets are the main attraction, were not introduced in the festivals of the gods by theignorant devotion of the Romans, but that the gods themselvesgave the most urgent commands to this effect, and indeed extorted from the Romans these solemnities and celebrations intheir honour. I touched on this in the preceding book, andmentioned that dramatic entertainments were first inauguratedat Rome on occasion of a pestilence, and by authority of thepontiff. And what man is there who is not more likely toadopt, for the regulation of his own life, the examples that arerepresented in plays which have a divine sanction, rather thanthe precepts written and promulgated with no more thanhuman authority? If the poets gave a false representationof Jove in describing him as adulterous, then it were to be expected that the chaste gods should in anger avenge so wickeda fiction, in place of encouraging the games which circulatedit. Of these plays, the most inoffensive are comedies andtragedies, that is to say, the dramas which poets write forthe stage, and which, though they often handle impure subjects,yet do so without the filthiness of language which characterizes many other performances; and it is these dramas whichboys are obliged by their seniors to read and learn as a partof what is called a liberal and gentlemanly education.¹9. That the poetical licence which the Greeks, in obedience to their gods, allowed,was restrained by the ancient Romans.The opinion of the ancient Romans on this matter isattested by Cicero in his work De Republica, in which Scipio,one of the interlocutors, says, "The lewdness of comedy couldnever have been suffered by audiences, unless the customs ofsociety had previously sanctioned the same lewdness." And1 This sentence recalls Augustine's own experience as a boy, which he bewailsin his Confessions.58 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK II..in the earlier days the Greeks preserved a certain reasonableness in their licence, and made it a law, that whatever comedywished to say of any one, it must say it of him by name.And so in the same work of Cicero's, Scipio says, " Whomhas it not aspersed? Nay, whom has it not worried? Whomhas it spared? Allow that it may assail demagogues andfactions, men injurious to the commonwealth-a Cleon, a Cleophon, a Hyperbolus. That is tolerable, though it had beenmore seemly for the public censor to brand such men, thanfor a poet to lampoon them; but to blacken the fame ofPericles with scurrilous verse, after he had with the utmostdignity presided over their state alike in war and in peace,was as unworthy of a poet, as if our own Plautus or Næviuswere to bring Publius and Cneius Scipio on the comic stage, oras if Cæcilius were to caricature Cato." And then a little afterhe goes on: " Though our Twelve Tables attached the penaltyof death only to a very few offences, yet among these few thiswas one if any man should have sung a pasquinade, or havecomposed a satire calculated to bring infamy or disgrace onanother person. Wisely decreed. For it is by the decisionsof magistrates, and by a well-informed justice, that our livesought to be judged, and not by the flighty fancies of poets;neither ought we to be exposed to hear calumnies, save wherewe have the liberty of replying, and defending ourselves beforean adequate tribunal." This much I have judged it advisableto quote from the fourth book of Cicero's De Republica; andI have made the quotation word for word, with the exceptionof some words omitted, and some slightly transposed, for thesake of giving the sense more readily. And certainly theextract is pertinent to the matter I am endeavouring to explain. Cicero makes some further remarks, and concludesthe passage by showing that the ancient Romans did notpermit any living man to be either praised or blamed on thestage. But the Greeks, as I said, though not so moral, weremore logical in allowing this licence which the Romans forbade for they saw that their gods approved and enjoyed thescurrilous language of low comedy when directed not onlyagainst men, but even against themselves; and this, whetherthe infamous actions imputed to them were the fictions ofBOOK II . ] PLAYERS HONOURED BY THE GREEKS. 59poets, or were their actual iniquities commemorated and acted.in the theatres. And would that the spectators had judgedthem worthy only of laughter, and not of imitation! Manifestly it had been a stretch of pride to spare the good nameof the leading men and the common citizens, when the verydeities did not grudge that their own reputation should beblemished.10. That the devils, in suffering eitherfalse or true crimes to be laid to theircharge, meant to do men a mischief.It is alleged, in excuse of this practice, that the stories toldof the gods are not true, but false, and mere inventions; butthis only makes matters worse, if we form our estimate bythe morality our religion teaches; and if we consider themalice of the devils, what more wily and astute artifice couldthey practise upon men? When a slander is uttered againsta leading statesman of upright and useful life, is it not reprehensible in proportion to its untruth and groundlessness?What punishment, then, shall be sufficient when the gods arethe objects of so wicked and outrageous an injustice? Butthe devils, whom these men repute gods, are content that eveniniquities they are guiltless of should be ascribed to them, solong as they may entangle men's minds in the meshes of theseopinions, and draw them on along with themselves to theirpredestinated punishment: whether such things were actually committed by the men whom these devils, delighting inhuman infatuation, cause to be worshipped as gods, and inwhose stead they, by a thousand malign and deceitful artifices,substitute themselves, and so receive worship; or whether,though they were really the crimes of men, these wickedspirits gladly allowed them to be attributed to higher beings,that there might seem to be conveyed from heaven itself asufficient sanction for the perpetration of shameful wickedness.The Greeks, therefore, seeing the character of the gods theyserved, thought that the poets should certainly not refrainfrom showing up human vices on the stage, either becausethey desired to be like their gods in this, or because they wereafraid that, if they required for themselves a more unblemishedreputation than they asserted for the gods, they might provokethem to anger.Pretr60 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK II.11. That the Greeks admitted players to offices ofstate, on the ground that menwho pleased the gods should not be contemptuously treated by theirfellows.It was a part of this same reasonableness of the Greekswhich induced them to bestow upon the actors of these sameplays no inconsiderable civic honours. In the above-mentioned book of the De Republica, it is mentioned that Æschines,a very eloquent Athenian, who had been a tragic actor in hisyouth, became a statesman, and that the Athenians again andagain sent another tragedian, Aristodemus, as their plenipotentiary to Philip. For they judged it unbecoming to condemn and treat as infamous persons those who were the chiefactors in the scenic entertainments which they saw to be sopleasing to the gods. No doubt this was immoral of theGreeks, but there can be as little doubt they acted in conformity with the character of their gods; for how could theyhave presumed to protect the conduct of the citizens frombeing cut to pieces by the tongues of poets and players, whowere allowed, and even enjoined by the gods, to tear theirdivine reputation to tatters? And how could they hold incontempt the men who acted in the theatres those dramaswhich, as they had ascertained, gave pleasure to the godswhom they worshipped? Nay, how could they but grant tothem the highest civic honours? On what plea could theyhonour the priests who offered for them acceptable sacrificesto the gods, if they branded with infamy the actors who inbehalf of the people gave to the gods that pleasure or honourwhich they demanded, and which, according to the account ofthe priests, they were angry at not receiving? Labeo,¹ whoselearning makes him an authority on such points, is of opinionthat the distinction between good and evil deities should findexpression in a difference of worship; that the evil should bepropitiated by bloody sacrifices and doleful rites, but the goodwith a joyful and pleasant observance, as, e.g. (as he says himself), with plays, festivals, and banquets. All this we shall,2¹ Labeo, a jurist of the time of Augustus, learned in law and antiquities,and the author of several works much prized by his own and some succeedingages. The two articles in Smith's Dictionary on Antistius and Cornelius Labeo should be read.2 "Lectisternia, " feasts in which the images of the gods were laid on pillows in the streets, and all kinds of food set before them.BOOK II . ] PLAYERS DISGRACED BY THE ROMANS. 61with God's help, hereafter discuss. At present, and speakingto the subject on hand, whether all kinds of offerings are madeindiscriminately to all the gods, as if all were good (and it isan unseemly thing to conceive that there are evil gods; butthese gods of the pagans are all evil, because they are not gods,but evil spirits), or whether, as Labeo thinks, a distinction ismade between the offerings presented to the different gods,the Greeks are equally justified in honouring alike the priestsby whom the sacrifices are offered, and the players by whomthe dramas are acted, that they may not be open to the chargeof doing an injury to all their gods, if the plays are pleasingto all of them, or (which were still worse) to their good gods,if the plays are relished only by them.12. That the Romans, by refusing to the poets the same licence in respect ofmenwhich they allowed them in the case of the gods, showed a more delicatesensitiveness regarding themselves than regarding the gods.The Romans, however, as Scipio boasts in that same discussion, declined having their conduct and good name subjectedto the assaults and slanders of the poets, and went so far asto make it a capital crime if any one should dare to composesuch verses. This was a very honourable course to pursue, sofar as they themselves were concerned, but in respect of thegods it was proud and irreligious: for they knew that thegods not only tolerated, but relished, being lashed by the injurious expressions of the poets, and yet they themselves wouldnot suffer this same handling; and what their ritual prescribedas acceptable to the gods, their law prohibited as injurious tothemselves. How then, Scipio, do you praise the Romans forrefusing this licence to the poets, so that no citizen could becalumniated, while you know that the gods were not includedunder this protection? Do you count your senate-houseworthy of so much higher a regard than the Capitol? Is theone city of Rome more valuable in your eyes than the wholeheaven of gods, that you prohibit your poets from utteringany injurious words against a citizen, though they may withimpunity cast what imputations they please upon the gods,without the interference of senator, censor, prince, or pontiff?It was, forsooth, intolerable that Plautus or Nævius shouldattack Publius and Cneius Scipio, insufferable that Cæcilius62 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK II. .Sofiles this to should lampoon Cato; but quite proper that your Terenceli Conduct should encourage youthful lust by the wicked example ofIn Ceintich • supreme Jove.13. That the Romans should have understood that gods who desired to be worshipped in licentious entertainments were unworthy of divine honour.But Scipio, were he alive, would possibly reply: " Howcould we attach a penalty to that which the gods themselveshave consecrated? For the theatrical entertainments in whichsuch things are said, and acted, and performed, were introduced into Roman society by the gods, who ordered that theyshould be dedicated and exhibited in their honour." But wasnot this, then, the plainest proof that they were no true gods,nor in any respect worthy of receiving divine honours fromthe republic? Suppose they had required that in theirhonour the citizens of Rome should be held up to ridicule,every Roman would have resented the hateful proposal. Howthen, I would ask, can they be esteemed worthy of worship,when they propose that their own crimes be used as materialfor celebrating their praises? Does not this artifice exposethem, and prove that they are detestable devils? Thus theRomans, though they were superstitious enough to serve asgods those who made no secret of their desire to be worshippedin licentious plays, yet had sufficient regard to their hereditarydignity and virtue, to prompt them to refuse to players anysuch rewards as the Greeks accorded them. On this pointwe have this testimony of Scipio, recorded in Cicero: " They[the Romans] considered comedy and all theatrical performances as disgraceful, and therefore not only debarred playersfrom offices and honours open to ordinary citizens, but alsodecreed that their names should be branded by the censor, anderased from the roll of their tribe." An excellent decree, andanother testimony to the sagacity of Rome; but I could wishtheir prudence had been more thoroughgoing and consistent.For when I hear that if any Roman citizen chose the stage ashis profession, he not only closed to himself every laudablecareer, but even became an outcast from his own tribe, I cannotbut exclaim: This is the true Roman spirit, this is worthy ofa state jealous of its reputation. But then some one interruptsmy rapture, by inquiring with what consistency players areBOOK II. ] INCONSISTENCY OF THE ROMANS. 63debarred from all honours, while plays are counted among thehonours due to the gods? For a long while the virtue ofRome was uncontaminated by theatrical exhibitions; ¹ and ifthey had been adopted for the sake of gratifying the taste ofthe citizens, they would have been introduced hand in handwith the relaxation of manners. But the fact is, that it wasthe gods who demanded that they should be exhibited togratify them. With what justice, then, is the player excommunicated by whom God is worshipped? On what pretextcan you at once adore him who exacts, and brand him whoacts these plays? This, then, is the controversy in which theGreeks and Romans are engaged. The Greeks think theyjustly honour players, because they worship the gods whodemand plays: the Romans, on the other hand, do not sufferan actor to disgrace by his name his own plebeian tribe, farless the senatorial order. And the whole of this discussionmay be summed up in the following syllogism. The Greeksgive us the major premiss: If such gods are to be worshipped,then certainly such men may be honoured. The Romans addthe minor: But such men must by no means be honoured.The Christians draw the conclusion: Therefore such gods mustby no means be worshipped.14. That Plato, who excluded poets from a well- ordered city, was better thanthese gods who desire to be honoured by theatrical plays.We have still to inquire why the poets who write theplays, and who by the law of the twelve tables are prohibitedfrom injuring the good name of the citizens, are reckoned moreestimable than the actors, though they so shamefully aspersethe character of the gods? Is it right that the actors of thesepoetical and God-dishonouring effusions be branded, whiletheir authors are honoured? Must we not here award thepalm to a Greek, Plato, who, in framing his ideal republic,2conceived that poets should be banished from the city asenemies of the state? He could not brook that the gods be1 According to Livy (vii. 2) , theatrical exhibitions were introduced in theyear 392 A.U.C. Before that time, he says, there had only been the games of the circus. The Romans sent to Etruria for players, who were called " histriones, ""hister " being the Tuscan word for a player. Other particulars are addedby Livy.2 See the Republic, book iii.64 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK II. .brought into disrepute, nor that the minds of the citizens bedepraved and besotted, by the fictions of the poets. Comparenow human nature as you see it in Plato, expelling poetsfrom the city that the citizens be uninjured, with the divinenature as you see it in these gods exacting plays in theirown honour. Plato strove, though unsuccessfully, to persuadethe light-minded and lascivious Greeks to abstain from somuch as writing such plays; the gods used their authority toextort the acting of the same from the dignified and soberminded Romans. And not content with having them acted,they had them dedicated to themselves, consecrated to themselves, solemnly celebrated in their own honour. To which,then, would it be more becoming in a state to decree divinehonours, to Plato, who prohibited these wicked and licentiousplays, or to the demons who delighted in blinding men to thetruth of what Plato unsuccessfully sought to inculcate?This philosopher, Plato, has been elevated by Labeo to therank of a demigod, and set thus upon a level with such as(Hercules and Romulus. Labeo ranks demigods higher thanheroes, but both he counts among the deities. But I have nodoubt that he thinks this man whom he reckons a demigodworthy of greater respect not only than the heroes, but alsothan the gods themselves. The laws of the Romans and thespeculations of Plato have this resemblance, that the latterpronounces a wholesale condemnation of poetical fictions ,while the former restrain the licence of satire, at least so faras men are the objects of it. Plato will not suffer poetseven to dwell in his city: the laws of Rome prohibit actorsfrom being enrolled as citizens; and if they had not feared tooffend the gods who had asked the services of the players, theywould in all likelihood have banished them altogether. It isobvious, therefore, that the Romans could not receive, norreasonably expect to receive, laws for the regulation of theirconduct from their gods, since the laws they themselves enactedfar surpassed and put to shame the morality of the gods. Thegods demand stage-plays in their own honour; the Romansexclude the players from all civic honours: ¹ the formercommanded that they should be celebrated by the scenic repre1 Comp. Tertullian, De Spectac. c. 22.BOOK II. ] PLATO MORE MORAL THAN THE GODS. 65sentation of their own disgrace; the latter commanded thatno poet should dare to blemish the reputation of any citizen.But that demigod Plato resisted the lust of such gods asthese, and showed the Romans what their genius had leftincomplete; for he absolutely excluded poets from his idealstate, whether they composed fictions with no regard to truth,or set the worst possible examples before wretched menunder the guise of divine actions. We for our part, indeed,,reckon Plato neither a god nor a demigod; we would noteven compare him to any of God's holy angels, nor to thetruth-speaking prophets, nor to any of the apostles or martyrsof Christ, nay, not to any faithful Christian man. The reasonof this opinion of ours we will, God prospering us, render inits own place. Nevertheless, since they wish him to be considered a demigod, we think he certainly is more entitledto that rank, and is every way superior, if not to Herculesand Romulus (though no historian could ever narrate nor anypoet sing of him that he had killed his brother, or committed ··any crime), yet certainly to Priapus, or a Cynocephalus,¹ orthe Fever,2-divinities whom the Romans have partly receivedfrom foreigners, and partly consecrated by home-grown rites.How, then, could gods such as these be expected to promulgategood and wholesome laws, either for the prevention of moraland social evils, or for their eradication where they had alreadysprung up?-gods who used their influence even to sow andcherish profligacy, by appointing that deeds truly or falselyascribed to them should be published to the people by meansof theatrical exhibitions, and by thus gratuitously fanning theflame of human lust with the breath of a seemingly divineapprobation. In vain does Cicero, speaking of poets, exclaimagainst this state of things in these words: " When theplaudits and acclamation of the people, who sit as infalliblejudges, are won by the poets, what darkness benights themind, what fears invade, what passions inflame it! " 31 The Egyptian gods represented with dogs' heads, called by Lucan (viii. 832)semicanes deos.</p><ul><li> The Fever had, according to Vives, three altars in Rome. See Cicero, De</li></ul><p>Nat. Deor. iii. 25, and Ælian, Var. Hist. xii. 11.3 Cicero, De Republica, v. Compare the third Tusculan Quæst. c. ii.VOL. I. E66 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK II. .15. That it was vanity, not reason, which created some ofthe Roman gods.But is it not manifest that vanity rather than reason regulated the choice of some of their false gods? This Plato,whom they reckon a demigod, and who used all his eloquenceto preserve men from the most dangerous spiritual calamities,has yet not been counted worthy even of a little shrine; butRomulus, because they can call him their own, they have' esteemed more highly than many gods, though their secret doctrine can allow him the rank only of a demigod. To him theyallotted a flamen, that is to say, a priest of a class so highlyesteemed in their religion (distinguished, too, by their conicalmitres), that for only three of their gods were flamens appointed,-the Flamen Dialis for Jupiter, Martialis for Mars, and Quirinalis for Romulus (for when the ardour of his fellow- citizenshad given Romulus a seat among the gods, they gave him thisnew name Quirinus). And thus by this honour Romulus hasbeen preferred to Neptune and Pluto, Jupiter's brothers, andto Saturn himself, their father. They have assigned the samepriesthood to serve him as to serve Jove; and in giving Mars(the reputed father of Romulus) the same honour, is thisnot rather for Romulus' sake than to honour Mars?16. That if the gods had really possessed any regard for righteousness, theRomans should have received good laws from them, instead ofhaving toborrow them from other nations.Moreover, if the Romans had been able to receive a rule ofen and life from their gods, they would not have borrowed Solon'slaws from the Athenians, as they did some years after Romewas founded; and yet they did not keep them as theyreceived them, but endeavoured to improve and amend them.¹Although Lycurgus pretended that he was authorized byApollo to give laws to the Lacedemonians, the sensibleRomans did not choose to believe this, and were not inducedto borrow laws from Sparta. Numa Pompilius, who succeededIn the year A. U. 299, three ambassadors were sent from Rome to Athens tocopy Solon's laws, and acquire information about the institutions of Greece.On their return the Decemviri were appointed to draw up a code; and finally,after some tragic interruptions, the celebrated Twelve Tables were accepted as the fundamental statutes of Roman law (fons universi publici privatique juris).These were graven on brass, and hung up for public information. Livy, iii.31-34.BOOK II. ] INIQUITIES OF ROME AT HER BEST. 67Romulus in the kingdom, is said to have framed some laws,which, however, were not sufficient for the regulation of civicaffairs. Among these regulations were many pertaining toreligious observances, and yet he is not reported to havereceived even these from the gods. With respect, then, tomoral evils, evils of life and conduct, evils which are somighty, that, according to the wisest pagans, ' by them statesare ruined while their cities stand uninjured , their godsmade not the smallest provision for preserving their worshippers from these evils, but, on the contrary, took special painsto increase them, as we have previously endeavoured to prove.17. Ofthe rape of the Sabine women, and other iniquities perpetrated in Rome'spalmiest days."12But possibly we are to find the reason for this neglect ofthe Romans by their gods, in the saying of Sallust, that" equity and virtue prevailed among the Romans not more byforce of laws than of nature." I presume it is to this inborn ///equity and goodness of disposition we are to ascribe the rape .of the Sabine women. What, indeed, could be more equitable and virtuous, than to carry off by force, as each man wasfit, and without their parents' consent, girls who were strangersand guests, and who had been decoyed and entrapped by thepretence of a spectacle! If the Sabines were wrong to denytheir daughters when the Romans asked for them, was it nota greater wrong in the Romans to carry them off after thatdenial? The Romans might more justly have waged waragainst the neighbouring nation for having refused theirdaughters in marriage when they first sought them, than forhaving demanded them back when they had stolen them.War should have been proclaimed at first: it was then thatMars should have helped his warlike son, that he might byforce of arms avenge the injury done him by the refusal ofmarriage, and might also thus win the women he desired.There might have been some appearance of " right of war " ina victor carrying off, in virtue of this right, the virgins who1 Possibly he refers to Plautus' Persa, iv. 4. 11-14.2 Sallust, Cat. Con. ix. Compare the similar saying of Tacitus regardingthe chastity of the Germans: " Plusque ibi boni mores valent, quam alibi bonæleges ” (Germ. xix. ).68 [BOOK II. THE CITY OF GOD.had been without any show of right denied him; whereasthere was no " right of peace " entitling him to carry off thosewho were not given to him, and to wage an unjust war withtheir justly enraged parents. One happy circumstance wasindeed connected with this act of violence, viz. , that thoughit was commemorated by the games of the circus, yet eventhis did not constitute it a precedent in the city or realm ofRome. If one would find fault with the results of this act, itmust rather be on the ground that the Romans made Romulusa god in spite of his perpetrating this iniquity; for one cannot(reproach them with making this deed any kind of precedentfor the rape of women.Again, I presume it was due to this natural equity andvirtue, that after the expulsion of King Tarquin, whose son hadviolated Lucretia, Junius Brutus the consul forced LuciusTarquinius Collatinus, Lucretia's husband and his own colleague, a good and innocent man, to resign his office and gointo banishment, on the one sole charge that he was of the!!!! name and blood of the Tarquins. This injustice was perpetrated with the approval, or at least connivance, of thepeople, who had themselves raised to the consular office bothCollatinus and Brutus. Another instance of this equity andvirtue is found in their treatment of Marcus Camillus. Thiseminent man, after he had rapidly conquered the Veians, atthat time the most formidable of Rome's enemies, and whohad maintained a ten years' war, in which the Roman army hadsuffered the usual calamities attendant on bad generalship,after he had restored security to Rome, which had begun totremble for its safety, and after he had taken the wealthiestcity of the enemy, had charges brought against him by themalice of those that envied his success, and by the insolenceof the tribunes of the people; and seeing that the city borehim no gratitude for preserving it, and that he wouldcertainly be condemned, he went into exile, and even in hisabsence was fined 10,000 asses. Shortly after, however, hisungrateful country had again to seek his protection from theGauls. But I cannot now mention all the shameful andiniquitous acts with which Rome was agitated, when thearistocracy attempted to subject the people, and the peopleresented their encroachments, and the advocates of either partyBOOK II. ] TESTIMONY OF SALLUST. 69were actuated rather by the love of victory than by any equitable or virtuous consideration.18. What the history of Sallust reveals regarding the life of the Romans, eitherwhen straitened by anxiety or relaxed in security.I will therefore pause, and adduce the testimony of Sallusthimself, whose words in praise of the Romans (that " equityand virtue prevailed among them not more by force of lawsthan of nature ") have given occasion to this discussion. Hewas referring to that period immediately after the expulsionof the kings, in which the city became great in an incrediblyshort space of time. And yet this same writer acknowledgesin the first book of his history, in the very exordium of hiswork, that even at that time, when a very brief intervalhad elapsed after the government had passed from kings toconsuls, the more powerful men began to act unjustly, andoccasioned the defection of the people from the patricians,and other disorders in the city. For after Sallust had statedthat the Romans enjoyed greater harmony and a purer stateof society between the second and third Punic wars than atany other time, and that the cause of this was not their loveof good order, but their fear lest the peace they had withCarthage might be broken (this also, as we mentioned, Nasicacontemplated when he opposed the destruction of Carthage,for he supposed that fear would tend to repress wickedness,and to preserve wholesome ways of living) , he then goes on tosay: " Yet, after the destruction of Carthage, discord, avarice,ambition, and the other vices which are commonly generatedby prosperity, more than ever increased." If they " increased,"and that " more than ever," then already they had appeared,and had been increasing. And so Sallust adds this reason forwhat he said. " For," he says, " the oppressive measures ofthe powerful, and the consequent secessions of the plebs fromthe patricians, and other civil dissensions, had existed fromthe first, and affairs were administered with equity and welltempered justice for no longer a period than the short timeafter the expulsion of the kings, while the city was occupiedwith the serious Tuscan war and Tarquin's vengeance." Yousee how, even in that brief period after the expulsion of thekings, fear, he acknowledges, was the cause of the interval of70 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK II.equity and good order. They were afraid, in fact, of the warwhich Tarquin waged against them, after he had been drivenfrom the throne and the city, and had allied himself with theTuscans. But observe what he adds: " After that, the patricians treated the people as their slaves, ordering them to bescourged or beheaded just as the kings had done, drivingthem from their holdings, and harshly tyrannizing over thosewho had no property to lose. The people, overwhelmed bythese oppressive measures, and most of all by exorbitantusury, and obliged to contribute both money and personalservice to the constant wars, at length took arms, and secededto Mount Aventine and Mount Sacer, and thus obtained forthemselves tribunes and protective laws. But it was only thesecond Punic war that put an end on both sides to discordand strife." You see what kind of men the Romans were,even so early as a few years after the expulsion of the kings;and it is of these men he says, that " equity and virtue prevailed among them not more by force of law than of nature.”Now, if these were the days in which the Roman republicshows fairest and best, what are we to say or think of thesucceeding age, when, to use the words of the same historian,changing little by little from the fair and virtuous city itwas, it became utterly wicked and dissolute?" This was, as hementions, after the destruction of Carthage. Sallust's briefsum and sketch of this period may be read in his own history,in which he shows how the profligate manners which werepropagated by prosperity resulted at last even in civil wars.He says: " And from this time the primitive manners, insteadof undergoing an insensible alteration as hitherto they haddone, were swept away as by a torrent: the young men wereso depraved by luxury and avarice, that it may justly be saidthat no father had a son who could either preserve his ownpatrimony, or keep his hands off other men's." Sallustadds a number of particulars about the vices of Sylla, andthe debased condition of the republic in general; and otherwriters make similar observations, though in much less striking language.However, I suppose you now see, or at least any one whogives his attention has the means of seeing, in what a sinkBOOK II. ] ROMAN CORRUPTION OLDER THAN CHRISTIANITY. 71of iniquity that city was plunged before the advent of ourheavenly King. For these things happened not only beforeChrist had begun to teach, but before He was even born ofthe Virgin. If, then, they dare not impute to their gods thegrievous evils of those former times, more tolerable before thedestruction of Carthage, but intolerable and dreadful after it,although it was the gods who by their malign craft instilledinto the minds of men the conceptions from which suchdreadful vices branched out on all sides, why do they imputethese present calamities to Christ, who teaches life- giving truth,and forbids us to worship false and deceitful gods, and who,abominating and condemning with His divine authority thosewicked and hurtful lusts of men, gradually withdraws Hisown people from a world that is corrupted by these vices,and is falling into ruins, to make of them an eternal city,whose glory rests not on the acclamations of vanity, but onthe judgment of truth?19. Ofthe corruption which had grown upon the Roman republic before Christ abolished the worship of the gods.Here, then, is this Roman republic, " which has changedlittle by little from the fair and virtuous city it was, and hasbecome utterly wicked and dissolute." It is not I who amthe first to say this, but their own authors, from whom welearned it for a fee, and who wrote it long before the comingof Christ. You see how, before the coming of Christ, andafter the destruction of Carthage, " the primitive manners,instead of undergoing insensible alteration, as hitherto they haddone, were swept away as by a torrent; and how depravedby luxury and avarice the youth were." Let them now, ontheir part, read to us any laws given by their gods to theRoman people, and directed against luxury and avarice. Andwould that they had only been silent on the subjects ofchastity and modesty, and had not demanded from the peopleindecent and shameful practices, to which they lent a pernicious patronage by their so- called divinity. Let themread our commandments in the Prophets, Gospels, Acts ofthe Apostles, or Epistles; let them peruse the large numberof precepts against avarice and luxury which are everywhereread to the congregations that meet for this purpose, and72 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK II. .which strike the ear, not with the uncertain sound of a philosophical discussion, but with the thunder of God's own oraclepealing from the clouds. And yet they do not impute to theirgods the luxury and avarice, the cruel and dissolute manners,that had rendered the republic utterly wicked and corrupt,even before the coming of Christ; but whatever afflictiontheir pride and effeminacy have exposed them to in theselatter days, they furiously impute to our religion. If thekings of the earth and all their subjects, if all princes andjudges of the earth, if young men and maidens, old andyoung, every age, and both sexes; if they whom the Baptistaddressed, the publicans and the soldiers, were all togetherto hearken to and observe the precepts of the Christianreligion regarding a just and virtuous life, then should therepublic adorn the whole earth with its own felicity, andattain in life everlasting to the pinnacle of kingly glory.But because this man listens, and that man scoffs, and mostare enamoured of the blandishments of vice rather than thewholesome severity of virtue, the people of Christ, whateverbe their condition-whether they be kings, princes, judges,soldiers, or provincials, rich or poor, bond or free, male orfemale are enjoined to endure this earthly republic, wickedand dissolute as it is, that so they may by this endurancewin for themselves an eminent place in that most holy andaugust assembly of angels and republic of heaven, in whichthe will of God is the law.20. Ofthe kind ofhappiness and life truly delighted in by those who inveighagainst the Christian religion.But the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight inimitating their scandalous iniquities, and are nowise concerned that the republic be less depraved and licentious.Only let it remain undefeated, they say, only let it flourishand abound in resources; let it be glorious by its victories, orstill better, secure in peace; and what matters it to us?This is our concern, that every man be able to increase hiswealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that thepowerful may subject the weak for their own purposes. Letthe poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity; and let theBOOK II. ] GODS AND PEOPLE ALIKE INDIFFERENT TO VIRTUE. 73rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister to theirpride. Let the people applaud not those who protect theirinterests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let nosevere duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kingsestimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by theservility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal tothe kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a heartyreverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws takecognizance rather of the injury done to another man's property, than of that done to one's own person. If a man be anuisance to his neighbour, or injure his property, family, orperson, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his ownfamily, and with those who willingly join him. Let there bea plentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one whowishes to use them, but specially for those who are too poorto keep one for their private use. Let there be erected housesof the largest and most ornate description: in these let therebe provided the most sumptuous banquets, where every onewho pleases may, by day or night, play, drink, vomit,¹ dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard the rustling of dancers,the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre; let a succession ofthe most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures maintain aperpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful to any,let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt tomodify or put an end to it, let him be silenced, banished, putan end to. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procurefor the people this condition of things, and preserve it whenonce possessed. Let them be worshipped as they wish; letthem demand whatever games they please, from or with theirown worshippers; only let them secure that such felicity benot imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of any kind. Whatsane man would compare a republic such as this, I will notsay to the Roman empire, but to the palace of Sardanapalus,the ancient king who was so abandoned to pleasures, that hecaused it to be inscribed on his tomb, that now that he was1 The same collocation of words is used by Cicero with reference to the wellknown mode of renewing the appetite in use among the Romans.74 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK II.dead, he possessed only those things which he had swallowedand consumed by his appetites while alive? If these menhad such a king as this, who, while self-indulgent, should layno severe restraint on them, they would more enthusiasticallyconsecrate to him a temple and a flamen than the ancientRomans did to Romulus.21. Cicero's opinion of the Roman republic.But if our adversaries do not care how foully and disgracefully the Roman republic be stained by corrupt practices, solong only as it holds together and continues in being, andif they therefore pooh-pooh the testimony of Sallust to its"utterly wicked and profligate" condition, what will theymake of Cicero's statement, that even in his time it hadbecome entirely extinct, and that there remained extant noRoman republic at all? He introduces Scipio (the Scipiowho had destroyed Carthage) discussing the republic, at a timewhen already there were presentiments of its speedy ruin bythat corruption which Sallust describes. In fact, at the timewhen the discussion took place, one of the Gracchi, who,according to Sallust, was the first great instigator of seditions,had already been put to death. His death, indeed, is mentioned in the same book. Now Scipio, in the end of thesecond book, says: " As, among the different sounds which proceed from lyres, flutes, and the human voice, there must bemaintained a certain harmony which a cultivated ear cannotendure to hear disturbed or jarring, but which may be elicitedin full and absolute concord by the modulation even of voicesvery unlike one another; so, where reason is allowed tomodulate the diverse elements of the state, there is obtained aperfect concord from the upper, lower, and middle classes asfrom various sounds; and what musicians call harmony insinging, is concord in matters of state, which is the strictestbond and best security of any , republic, and which by noingenuity can be retained where justice has become extinct."Then, when he had expatiated somewhat more fully, and hadmore copiously illustrated the benefits of its presence and theruinous effects of its absence upon a state, Pilus, one of thecompany present at the discussion, struck in and demandedthat the question should be more thoroughly sifted, and thatBOOK II . ]CICERO'S OPINION OF THE REPUBLIC. 75the subject of justice should be freely discussed for the sakeof ascertaining what truth there was in the maxim which wasthen becoming daily more current, that " the republic cannotbe governed without injustice." Scipio expressed his willingness to have this maxim discussed and sifted, and gave it ashis opinion that it was baseless, and that no progress could bemade in discussing the republic unless it was established, notonly that this maxim, that " the republic cannot be governedwithout injustice," was false, but also that the truth is, that itcannot be governed without the most absolute justice. Andthe discussion of this question, being deferred till the nextday, is carried on in the third book with great animation.For Pilus himself undertook to defend the position that therepublic cannot be governed without injustice, at the sametime being at special pains to clear himself of any real participation in that opinion. He advocated with great keennessthe cause of injustice against justice, and endeavoured byplausible reasons and examples to demonstrate that the formeris beneficial, the latter useless, to the republic. Then, at therequest of the company, Lælius attempted to defend justice,and strained every nerve to prove that nothing is so hurtfulto a state as injustice; and that without justice a republiccan neither be governed, nor even continue to exist.When this question has been handled to the satisfaction ofthe company, Scipio reverts to the original thread of discourse,and repeats with commendation his own brief definition of arepublic, that it is the weal of the people. "The people" hedefines as being not every assemblage or mob, but an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of law, and bya community of interests. Then he shows the use of definition in debate; and from these definitions of his own hegathers that a republic, or " weal of the people," then existsonly when it is well and justly governed, whether by amonarch, or an aristocracy, or by the whole people. Butwhen the monarch is unjust, or, as the Greeks say, a tyrant;or the aristocrats are unjust, and form a faction; or thepeople themselves are unjust, and become, as Scipio for wantof a better name calls them, themselves the tyrant, then therepublic is not only blemished (as had been proved the day76 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK II. .before) , but by legitimate deduction from those definitions, italtogether ceases to be. For it could not be the people's wealwhen a tyrant factiously lorded it over the state; neitherwould the people be any longer a people if it were unjust,since it would no longer answer the definition of a people—an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment oflaw, and by a community of interests."66When, therefore, the Roman republic was such as Sallustdescribed it, it was not " utterly wicked and profligate," ashe says, but had altogether ceased to exist, if we are to admitthe reasoning of that debate maintained on the subject ofthe republic by its best representatives. Tully himself, too,speaking not in the person of Scipio or any one else, bututtering his own sentiments, uses the following language inthe beginning of the fifth book, after quoting a line from thepoet Ennius, in which he said, " Rome's severe morality andher citizens are her safeguard." " This verse," says Cicero,seems to me to have all the sententious truthfulness of anoracle. For neither would the citizens have availed withoutthe morality of the community, nor would the morality of thecommons without outstanding men have availed either toestablish or so long to maintain in vigour so grand a republicwith so wide and just an empire. Accordingly, before ourday, the hereditary usages formed our foremost men, and theyon their part retained the usages and institutions of theirfathers. But our age, receiving the republic as a chef-d'œuvreof another age which has already begun to grow old, has notmerely neglected to restore the colours of the original, but hasnot even been at the pains to preserve so much as the generaloutline and most outstanding features. For what survivesof that primitive morality which the poet called Rome's safeguard? It is so obsolete and forgotten, that, far from practising it, one does not even know it. And of the citizens whatshall I say? Morality has perished through poverty of greatmen; a poverty for which we must not only assign a reason,but for the guilt of which we must answer as criminals chargedwith a capital crime. For it is through our vices, and not byany mishap, that we retain only the name of a republic, andhave long since lost the reality."BOOK II . ] DECAY OF ITS ANCIENT VIRTUE. 77This is the confession of Cicero, long indeed after the deathof Africanus, whom he introduced as an interlocutor in hiswork De Republica, but still before the coming of Christ. Yet,if the disasters he bewails had been lamented after the Christian religion had been diffused, and had begun to prevail, isthere a man of our adversaries who would not have thoughtthat they were to be imputed to the Christians? Why, then,did their gods not take steps then to prevent the decay andextinction of that republic, over the loss of which Cicero, longbefore Christ had come in the flesh, sings so lugubrious adirge? Its admirers have need to inquire whether, even inthe days of primitive men and morals, true justice flourishedin it; or was it not perhaps even then, to use the casual expression of Cicero, rather a coloured painting than the livingreality? But, if God will, we shall consider this elsewhere.For I mean in its own place to show that according to thedefinitions in which Cicero himself, using Scipio as his mouthpiece, briefly propounded what a republic is, and what apeople is, and according to many testimonies, both of his ownlips and of those who took part in that same debate-Romenever was a republic, because true justice had never a placein it. But accepting the more feasible definitions of a republic,I grant there was a republic of a certain kind, and certainlymuch better administered by the more ancient Romans thanby their modern representatives. But the fact is, true justicehas no existence save in that republic whose founder andruler is Christ, if at least any choose to call this a republic;and indeed we cannot deny that it is the people's weal. Butif perchance this name, which has become familiar in otherconnections, be considered alien to our common parlance, wemay at all events say that in this city is true justice; the cityof which Holy Scripture says, " Glorious things are said ofthee, O city of God. "22. That the Roman gods never took any steps to prevent the republic from beingruined by immorality.But what is relevant to the present question is this, thathowever admirable our adversaries say the republic was or is,it is certain that by the testimony of their own most learned78 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK II. .writers it had become, long before the coming of Christ,utterly wicked and dissolute, and indeed had no existence,but had been destroyed by profligacy. To prevent this, surelythese guardian gods ought to have given precepts of moralsand a rule of life to the people by whom they were worshipped in so many temples, with so great a variety of priestsand sacrifices, with such numberless and diverse rites, somany festal solemnities, so many celebrations of magnificentgames. But in all this the demons only looked after theirown interest, and cared not at all how their worshippers lived,or rather were at pains to induce them to lead an abandonedlife, so long as they paid these tributes to their honour, andregarded them with fear. If any one denies this, let himproduce, let him point to, let him read the laws which thegods had given against sedition, and which the Gracchi transgressed when they threw everything into confusion; or thoseMarius, and Cinna, and Carbo broke when they involved theircountry in civil wars, most iniquitous and unjustifiable in theircauses, cruelly conducted, and yet more cruelly terminated; orthose which Sylla scorned, whose life, character, and deeds, asdescribed by Sallust and other historians, are the abhorrenceof all mankind. Who will deny that at that time therepublic had become extinct?Possibly they will be bold enough to suggest in defenceof the gods, that they abandoned the city on account of theprofligacy of the citizens, according to the lines of Virgil:"Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,Are those who made this realm divine. "But, firstly, if it be so, then they cannot complain against theChristian religion, as if it were that which gave offence tothe gods and caused them to abandon Rome, since the Romanimmorality had long ago driven from the altars of the city acloud of little gods, like as many flies. And yet where wasthis host of divinities, when, long before the corruption of theprimitive morality, Rome was taken and burnt by the Gauls?Perhaps they were present, but asleep? For at that time thewhole city fell into the hands of the enemy, with the singleexception of the Capitoline hill; and this too would have been1 Eneid, ii. 351-2.BOOK II. ] THIS LIFE IS NOT RULED BY THE GODS. 79taken, had not the watchful geese aroused the sleeping gods!And this gave occasion to the festival of the goose, in whichRome sank nearly to the superstition of the Egyptians, whoworship beasts and birds. But of these adventitious evilswhich are inflicted by hostile armies or by some disaster, andwhich attach rather to the body than the soul, I am notmeanwhile disputing. At present I speak of the decay ofmorality, which at first almost imperceptibly lost its brillianthue, but afterwards was wholly obliterated, was swept away asby a torrent, and involved the republic in such disastrousruin, that though the houses and walls remained standing,the leading writers do not scruple to say that the republicwas destroyed. Now, the departure of the gods " from eachfane, each sacred shrine," and their abandonment of the cityto destruction, was an act of justice, if their laws inculcatingjustice and a moral life had been held in contempt by thatcity. But what kind of gods were these, pray, who declinedto live with a people who worshipped them, and whosecorrupt life they had done nothing to reform?23. That the vicissitudes of this life are dependent not on the favour or hostilityofdemons, but on the will ofthe true God.•But, further, is it not obvious that the gods have abetted thefulfilment of men's desires, instead of authoritatively bridlingthem? For Marius, a low-born and self-made man, who ruthlessly provoked and conducted civil wars, was so effectuallyaided by them, that he was seven times consul, and diedfull of years in his seventh consulship, escaping the hands ofSylla, who immediately afterwards came into power. Why,then, did they not also aid him, so as to restrain him from somany enormities? For if it is said that the gods had nohand in his success, this is no trivial admission, that a mancan attain the dearly coveted felicity of this life even thoughhis own gods be not propitious; that men can be loaded withthe gifts of fortune as Marius was, can enjoy health, power,wealth, honours, dignity, length of days, though the gods behostile to him; and that, on the other hand, men can be tormented as Regulus was, with captivity, bondage, destitution,watchings, pain, and cruel death, though the gods be his friends.80 THE CITY OF GOD.[ BOOK II.To concede this is to make a compendious confession that thegods are useless, and their worship superfluous. If the godshave taught the people rather what goes clean counter to thevirtues of the soul, and that integrity of life which meets areward after death; if even in respect of temporal and transitoryblessings they neither hurt those whom they hate nor profitwhom they love, why are they worshipped, why are they invokedwith such eager homage? Why do men murmur in difficultand sad emergencies, as if the gods had retired in anger? andwhy, on their account, is the Christian religion injured by themost unworthy calumnies? If in temporal matters they havepower either for good or for evil, why did they stand by Marius,the worst of Rome's citizens, and abandon Regulus, the best?Does this not prove themselves to be most unjust and wicked?And even if it be supposed that for this very reason they arethe rather to be feared and worshipped, this is a mistake; forwe do not read that Regulus worshipped them less assiduouslythan Marius. Neither is it apparent that a wicked life is tobe chosen, on the ground that the gods are supposed to havefavoured Marius more than Regulus. For Metellus, themost highly esteemed of all the Romans, who had five sonsin the consulship, was prosperous even in this life; andCatiline, the worst of men, reduced to poverty and defeatedin the war his own guilt had aroused, lived and perishedmiserably. Real and secure felicity is the peculiar possessionof those who worship that God by whom alone it can beconferred.It is thus apparent, that when the republic was beingdestroyed by profligate manners, its gods did nothing tohinder its destruction by the direction or correction of itsmanners, but rather accelerated its destruction by increasingthe demoralization and corruption that already existed. Theyneed not pretend that their goodness was shocked by theiniquity of the city, and that they withdrew in anger. Forthey were there, sure enough; they are detected, convicted:they were equally unable to break silence so as to guideothers, and to keep silence so as to conceal themselves. Ido not dwell on the fact that the inhabitants of Minturnætook pity on Marius, and commended him to the goddessBOOK II. ] SYLLA ENCOURAGED BY THE GODS. 81Marica in her grove, that she might give him success inall things, and that from the abyss of despair in which hethen lay he forthwith returned unhurt to Rome, and enteredthe city the ruthless leader of a ruthless army; and theywho wish to know how bloody was his victory, how unlike acitizen, and how much more relentlessly than any foreign foehe acted, let them read the histories. But this, as I said, Ido not dwell upon; nor do I attribute the bloody bliss ofMarius to, I know not what Minturnian goddess [ Marica] , butrather to the secret providence of God, that the mouths of ouradversaries might be shut, and that they who are not led bypassion, but by prudent consideration of events, might be de- livered from error. And even if the demons have any powerin these matters, they have only that power which the secretdecree of the Almighty allots to them, in order that we maynot set too great store by earthly prosperity, seeing it is oftentimes vouchsafed even to wicked men like Marius; and thatwe may not, on the other hand, regard it as an evil, sincewe see that many good and pious worshippers of the one trueGod are, in spite of the demons, pre-eminently successful;and, finally, that we may not suppose that these uncleanspirits are either to be propitiated or feared for the sake ofearthly blessings or calamities: for as wicked men on earthcannot do all they would, so neither can these demons, butonly in so far as they are permitted by the decree of Himwhose judgments are fully comprehensible, justly reprehensible by none.24. Ofthe deeds of Sylla, in which the demons boasted that he had their help.It is certain that Sylla-whose rule was so cruel, that, incomparison with it, the preceding state of things which hecame to avenge was regretted-when first he advanced towardsRome to give battle to Marius, found the auspices so favourable when he sacrificed, that, according to Livy's account, theaugur Postumius expressed his willingness to lose his head ifSylla did not, with the help of the gods, accomplish what hedesigned. The gods, you see, had not departed from " everyfane and sacred shrine, " since they were still predicting theissue of these affairs, and yet were taking no steps to correctSylla himself. Their presages promised him great prosperity, butVOL. I. F82 [BOOK II. THE CITY OF GOD.no threatenings of theirs subdued his evil passions. And then,when he was in Asia conducting the war against Mithridates,a message from Jupiter was delivered to him by Lucius Titius,to the effect that he would conquer Mithridates; and so it cameto pass. And afterwards, when he was meditating a returnto Rome for the purpose of avenging in the blood of thecitizens injuries done to himself and his friends, a secondmessage from Jupiter was delivered to him by a soldier ofthe sixth legion, to the effect that it was he who had predictedthe victory over Mithridates, and that now he promised to givehim power to recover the republic from his enemies, thoughwith great bloodshed. Sylla at once inquired of the soldierwhat form had appeared to him; and, on his reply, recognisedthat it was the same as Jupiter had formerly employed toconvey to him the assurance regarding the victory over Mithridates. How, then, can the gods be justified in this matterfor the care they took to predict these shadowy successes, andfor their negligence in correcting Sylla, and restraining himfrom stirring up a civil war so lamentable and atrocious, that itnot merely disfigured, but extinguished, the republic? Thetruth is, as I have often said, and as Scripture informs us, andas the facts themselves sufficiently indicate, the demons arefound to look after their own ends only, that they may beregarded and worshipped as gods, and that men may be induced to offer to them a worship which associates them withtheir crimes, and involves them in one common wickednessand judgment of God.Afterwards, when Sylla had come to Tarentum, and hadsacrificed there, he saw on the head of the victim's liver thelikeness of a golden crown. Thereupon the same soothsayerPostumius interpreted this to signify a signal victory, andordered that he only should eat of the entrails. A littleafterwards, the slave of a certain Lucius Pontius cried out, “ Iam Bellona's messenger; the victory is yours, Sylla!" Thenhe added that the Capitol should be burned. As soon as hehad uttered this prediction he left the camp, but returned thefollowing day more excited than ever, and shouted, " The Capitolis fired!" And fired indeed it was. This it was easy for ademon both to foresee and quickly to announce. But observe,BOOK II. ] THE GODS INCITE MEN TO WICKEDNESS. 83as relevant to our subject, what kind of gods they are underwhom these men desire to live, who blaspheme the Saviourthat delivers the wills of the faithful from the dominion ofdevils. The man cried out in prophetic rapture, " The victoryis yours, Sylla! " And to certify that he spoke by a divine.spirit, he predicted also an event which was shortly to happen,and which indeed did fall out, in a place from which he inwhom this spirit was speaking was far distant. But he nevercried, Forbear thy villanies, Sylla!-the villanies which werecommitted at Rome by that victor to whom a golden crownon the calf's liver had been shown as the divine evidence ofhis victory. If such signs as this were customarily sent byjust gods, and not by wicked demons, then certainly the entrails he consulted should rather have given Sylla intimationof the cruel disasters that were to befall the city and himself.For that victory was not so conducive to his exaltation topower, as it was fatal to his ambition; for by it he becameso insatiable in his desires, and was rendered so arrogant andreckless by prosperity, that he may be said rather to haveinflicted a moral destruction on himself than corporal destruction on his enemies. But these truly woful and deplorable calamities the gods gave him no previous hint of, neitherby entrails, augury, dream, nor prediction. For they fearedhis amendment more than his defeat. Yea, they took goodcare that this glorious conqueror of his own fellow- citizensshould be conquered and led captive by his own infamousvices, and should thus be the more submissive slave of thedemons themselves.25. How powerfully the evil spirits incite men to wicked actions, by giving themthe quasi-divine authority oftheir example.Now, who does not hereby comprehend, -unless he haspreferred to imitate such gods rather than by divine grace towithdraw himself from their fellowship, -who does not seehow eagerly these evil spirits strive by their example to lend,as it were, divine authority to crime? Is not this proved bythe fact that they were seen in a wide plain in Campania rehearsing among themselves the battle which shortly after tookplace there with great bloodshed between the armies of Rome?For at first there were heard loud crashing noises, and after-84 [ BOOK II. THE CITY OF GOD.wards many reported that they had seen for some days together two armies engaged. And when this battle ceased, theyfound the ground all indented with just such footprints ofmen and horses as a great conflict would leave. If, then, thedeities were veritably fighting with one another, the civil warsof men are sufficiently justified; yet, by the way, let it be observed that such pugnacious gods must be very wicked or verywretched. If, however, it was but a sham- fight, what didthey intend by this, but that the civil wars of the Romansshould seem no wickedness, but an imitation of the gods?For already the civil wars had begun; and before this, somelamentable battles and execrable massacres had occurred.Already many had been moved by the story of the soldier,who, on stripping the spoils of his slain foe, recognised in thestripped corpse his own brother, and, with deep curses on civilwars, slew himself there and then on his brother's body. Todisguise the bitterness of such tragedies, and kindle increasingardour in this monstrous warfare, these malign demons, whowere reputed and worshipped as gods, fell upon this plan ofrevealing themselves in a state of civil war, that no compunction for fellow-citizens might cause the Romans to shrinkfrom such battles, but that the human criminality might bejustified by the divine example. By a like craft, too, did theseevil spirits command that scenic entertainments, of which Ihave already spoken, should be instituted and dedicated tothem. And in these entertainments the poetical compositionsand actions of the drama ascribed such iniquities to thegods, that every one might safely imitate them, whether hebelieved the gods had actually done such things, or, not believing this, yet perceived that they most eagerly desired to berepresented as having done them. And that no one mightsuppose, that in representing the gods as fighting with oneanother, the poets had slandered them, and imputed to themunworthy actions, the gods themselves, to complete the deception, confirmed the compositions of the poets by exhibitingtheir own battles to the eyes of men, not only through actionsin the theatres, but in their own persons on the actual field.We have been forced to bring forward these facts, becausetheir authors have not scrupled to say and to write that theBOOK II. ] WHAT THEIR SECRET INSTRUCTIONS AMOUNT TO. 85Roman republic had already been ruined by the depravedmoral habits of the citizens, and had ceased to exist before theadvent of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now this ruin they do notimpute to their own gods, though they impute to our Christthe evils of this life, which cannot ruin good men, be theyalive or dead. And this they do, though our Christ hasissued so many precepts inculcating virtue and restrainingvice; while their own gods have done nothing whatever topreserve that republic that served them, and to restrain itfrom ruin by such precepts, but have rather hastened itsdestruction, by corrupting its morality through their pestilentexample. No one, I fancy, will now be bold enough to saythat the republic was then ruined because of the departureof the gods " from each fane, each sacred shrine," as if theywere the friends of virtue, and were offended by the vices ofmen. No, there are too many presages from entrails, auguries,soothsayings, whereby they boastingly proclaimed themselvesprescient of future events and controllers of the fortune ofwar, all which prove them to have been present. And hadthey been indeed absent, the Romans would never in thesecivil wars have been so far transported by their own passionsas they were by the instigations of these gods.26. That the demons gave in secret certain obscure instructions in morals, whilein public their own solemnities inculcated all wickedness.Seeing that this is so,-seeing that the filthy and crueldeeds, the disgraceful and criminal actions of the gods, whetherreal or feigned, were at their own request published, and wereconsecrated, and dedicated in their honour as sacred andstated solemnities; seeing they vowed vengeance on those whorefused to exhibit them to the eyes of all, that they might beproposed as deeds worthy of imitation, why is it that thesesame demons, who, by taking pleasure in such obscenities, acknowledge themselves to be unclean spirits, and by delightingin their own villanies and iniquities, real or imaginary, and byrequesting from the immodest, and extorting from the modest,the celebration of these licentious acts, proclaim themselvesinstigators to a criminal and lewd life;-why, I ask, are theyrepresented as giving some good moral precepts to a few oftheir own elect, initiated in the secrecy of their shrines? If86 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK II. .it be so, this very thing only serves further to demonstrate themalicious craft of these pestilent spirits. For so great is theinfluence of probity and chastity, that all men, or almost allmen, are moved by the praise of these virtues; nor is anyman so depraved by vice, but he hath some feeling of honourleft in him. So that, unless the devil sometimes transformedhimself, as Scripture says, into an angel of light,' he could notcompass his deceitful purpose. Accordingly, in public, a boldimpurity fills the ear of the people with noisy clamour; inprivate, a feigned chastity speaks in scarce audible whispers toa few an open stage is provided for shameful things, but onthe praiseworthy the curtain falls: grace hides, disgrace flaunts:a wicked deed draws an overflowing house, a virtuous speechfinds scarce a hearer, as though purity were to be blushed at,impurity boasted of. Where else can such confusion reign,but in devils' temples? Where, but in the haunts of deceit?For the secret precepts are given as a sop to the virtuous,who are few in number; the wicked examples are exhibitedto encourage the vicious, who are countless.Where and when those initiated in the mysteries of Cœlestisreceived any good instructions, we know not. What we doknow is, that before her shrine, in which her image is set, andamidst a vast crowd gathering from all quarters, and standingclosely packed together, we were intensely interested spectatorsof the games which were going on, and saw, as we pleased toturn the eye, on this side a grand display of harlots, on theother the virgin goddess: we saw this virgin worshipped withprayer and with obscene rites. There we saw no shamefacedmimes, no actress overburdened with modesty: all that theobscene rites demanded was fully complied with. We wereplainly shown what was pleasing to the virgin deity, and thematron who witnessed the spectacle returned home from thetemple a wiser woman. Some, indeed, of the more prudentwomen turned their faces from the immodest movements ofthe players, and learned the art of wickedness by a furtive.regard. For they were restrained, by the modest demeanourdue to men, from looking boldly at the immodest gestures; butmuch more were they restrained from condemning with chaste12 Cor. xi. 14.BOOK II. ] DEMORALIZING INFLUENCE OF OBSCENE PLAYS. 87heart the sacred rites of her whom they adored. And yetthis licentiousness-which, if practised in one's home, could onlybe done there in secret-was practised as a public lesson in thetemple; and if any modesty remained in men, it was occupiedin marvelling that wickedness which men could not unrestrainedly commit should be part of the religious teaching ofthe gods, and that to omit its exhibition should incur theanger of the gods. What spirit can that be, which by a hiddeninspiration stirs men's corruption, and goads them to adultery,and feeds on the full-fledged iniquity, unless it be the same thatfinds pleasure in such religious ceremonies, sets in the templesimages of devils, and loves to see in play the images of vices;that whispers in secret some righteous sayings to deceive thefew who are good, and scatters in public invitations to profligacy,to gain possession of the millions who are wicked?27. That the obscenities of those plays which the Romans consecrated in orderto propitiate their gods, contributed largely to the overthrow of public order.InCicero, a weighty man, and a philosopher in his way, whenabout to be made edile, wished the citizens to understand¹that, among the other duties of his magistracy, he must propitiate Flora by the celebration of games. And these gamesare reckoned devout in proportion to their lewdness.another place, and when he was now consul, and the state ingreat peril, he says that games had been celebrated for tendays together, and that nothing had been omitted which couldpacify the gods: as if it had not been more satisfactory to irritatethe gods by temperance, than to pacify them by debauchery;and to provoke their hate by honest living, than soothe it bysuch unseemly grossness. For no matter how cruel was theferocity of those men who were threatening the state, and onwhose account the gods were being propitiated: it could nothave been more hurtful than the alliance of gods who werewon with the foulest vices. To avert the danger whichthreatened men's bodies, the gods were conciliated in a fashionthat drove virtue from their spirits; and the gods did notenrol themselves as defenders of the battlements against thebesiegers, until they had first stormed and sacked the morality1 Cicero, C. Verrem, vi. 8. 2 Cicero, C. Catilinam, iii. 8.88 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK II. .of the citizens. This propitiation of such divinities,—a propitiation so wanton, so impure, so immodest, so wicked, so filthy,whose actors the innate and praiseworthy virtue of the Romansdisabled from civic honours, erased from their tribe, recognisedas polluted and made infamous; —this propitiation, I say, sofoul, so detestable, and alien from every religious feeling, thesefabulous and ensnaring accounts of the criminal actions of thegods, these scandalous actions which they either shamefullyand wickedly committed, or more shamefully and wickedlyfeigned, all this the whole city learned in public both by thewords and gestures of the actors. They saw that the godsdelighted in the commission of these things, and thereforebelieved that they wished them not only to be exhibited tothem, but to be imitated by themselves. But as for that goodand honest instruction which they speak of, it was given insuch secrecy, and to so few (if indeed given at all), that theyseemed rather to fear it might be divulged, than that it mightnot be practised.28. That the Christian religion is health-giving.They, then, are but abandoned and ungrateful wretches, indeep and fast bondage to that malign spirit, who complain andmurmur that men are rescued by the name of Christ from thehellish thraldom of these unclean spirits, and from a participation in their punishment, and are brought out of the night ofpestilential ungodliness into the light of most healthful piety.Only such men could murmur that the masses flock to thechurches and their chaste acts of worship, where a seemlyseparation of the sexes is observed; where they learn howtheymay so spend this earthly life, as to merit a blessed eternityhereafter; where Holy Scripture and instruction in righteousness are proclaimed from a raised platform in presence of all,that both they who do the word may hear to their salvation,and they who do it not may hear to judgment. And thoughsome enter who scoff at such precepts, all their petulance iseither quenched by a sudden change, or is restrained throughfear or shame. For no filthy and wicked action is there setforth to be gazed at or to be imitated; but either the preceptsof the true God are recommended, His miracles narrated, Hisgifts praised, or His benefits implored.BOOK II . ] APPEAL TO THE ROMANS. 8929. An exhortation to the Romans to renounce paganism.This, rather, is the religion worthy of your desires, O admirable Roman race, the progeny of your Scævolas and Scipios, ofRegulus, and of Fabricius. This rather covet, this distinguishfrom that foul vanity and crafty malice of the devils. If thereis in your nature any eminent virtue, only by true piety is itpurged and perfected, while by impiety it is wrecked andpunished. Choose now what you will pursue, that your praisemay be not in yourself, but in the true God, in whom is noerror. For of popular glory you have had your share; but bythe secret providence of God, the true religion was not offeredto your choice. Awake, it is now day; as you have alreadyawaked in the persons of some in whose perfect virtue andsufferings for the true faith we glory: for they, contendingon all sides with hostile powers, and conquering them all bybravely dying, have purchased for us this country of ours withtheir blood; to which country we invite you, and exhort youto add yourselves to the number of the citizens of this city,which also has a sanctuary' of its own in the true remission ofsins. Do not listen to those degenerate sons of thine whoslander Christ and Christians, and impute to them these disastrous times, though they desire times in which they mayenjoy rather impunity for their wickedness than a peaceful life.Such has never been Rome's ambition even in regard to herearthly country. Lay hold now on the celestial country,which is easily won, and in which you will reign truly andfor ever. For there shalt thou find no vestal fire, no Capitolinestone, but the one true God" No date, no goal will here ordain:But grant an endless, boundless reign. "?No longer, then, follow after false and deceitful gods; abjurethem rather, and despise them, bursting forth into true liberty.Gods they are not, but malignant spirits, to whom your eternalhappiness will be a sore punishment. Juno, from whom youdeduce your origin according to the flesh, did not so bitterlygrudge Rome's citadels to the Trojans, as these devils whomyet ye repute gods, grudge an everlasting seat to the race ofmankind. And thou thyself hast in no wavering voice passed¹ Alluding to the sanctuary given to all who fled to Rome in its early days.</p><ul><li> Virgil, Eneid, i. 278.</li></ul><p>290 [BOOK II.THE CITY OF GOD.judgment on them, when thou didst pacify them with games,and yet didst account as infamous the men by whom the playswere acted. Suffer us, then, to assert thy freedom against theunclean spirits who had imposed on thy neck the yoke ofcelebrating their own shame and filthiness. The actors ofthese divine crimes thou hast removed from offices of honour;supplicate the true God, that He may remove from thee thosegods who delight in their crimes,-a most disgraceful thing ifthe crimes are really theirs, and a most malicious inventionif the crimes are feigned. Well done, in that thou hast spontaneously banished from the number of your citizens all actorsand players. Awake more fully: the majesty of God cannot bepropitiated by that which defiles the dignity of man. How,then, can you believe that gods who take pleasure in suchlewd plays, belong to the number of the holy powers of heaven,when the men by whom these plays are acted are by yourselves refused admission into the number of Roman citizenseven of the lowest grade? Incomparably more glorious thanRome, is that heavenly city in which for victory you havetruth; for dignity, holiness; for peace, felicity; for life, eternity.Much less does it admit into its society such gods, if thou dostblush to admit into thine such men. Wherefore, if thou wouldstattain to the blessed city, shun the society of devils. Theywho are propitiated by deeds of shame, are unworthy of theworship of right- hearted men. Let these, then, be obliteratedfrom your worship by the cleansing of the Christian religion,as those men were blotted from your citizenship by the censor'smark.But, so far as regards carnal benefits, which are the onlyblessings the wicked desire to enjoy, and carnal miseries, whichalone they shrink from enduring, we will show in the followingbook that the demons have not the power they are supposedto have; and although they had it, we ought rather on thataccount to despise these blessings, than for the sake of themto worship those gods, and by worshipping them to miss theattainment of these blessings they grudge us. But that theyhave not even this power which is ascribed to them by thosewho worship them for the sake of temporal advantages, this,I say, I will prove in the following book; so let us here closethe present argument.BOOK III.] GREAT CALAMITIES BEFORE CHRIST'S ADVENT. 91BOOK THIRD.ARGUMENT.AS IN THE FOREGOING BOOK AUGUSTINE HAS PROVED REGARDING MORAL ANDSPIRITUAL CALAMITIES, SO IN THIS BOOK HE PROVES REGARDING EXTERNALAND BODILY DISASTERS, THAT SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE CITY THEROMANS HAVE BEEN CONTINUALLY SUBJECT TO THEM; AND THAT EVENWHEN THE FALSE GODS WERE WORSHIPPED WITHOUT A RIVAL, BEFORE THEADVENT OF CHRIST, THEY AFFORDED NO Relief from SUCH CALAMITIES.1. Ofthe ills, which alone the wicked fear, and which the world continuallysuffered, even when the gods were worshipped.OFF moral and spiritual evils, which are above all others tobe deprecated, I think enough has already been said toshow that the false gods took no steps to prevent the peoplewho worshipped them from being overwhelmed by such calamities, but rather aggravated the ruin. I see I must nowspeak of those evils which alone are dreaded by the heathenfamine, pestilence, war, pillage, captivity, massacre, and thelike calamities, already enumerated in the first book. Forevil men account those things alone evil which do not makemen evil; neither do they blush to praise good things, andyet to remain evil among the good things they praise. Itgrieves them more to own a bad house than a bad life, as ifit were man's greatest good to have everything good but himself. But not even such evils as were alone dreaded by theheathen were warded off by their gods, even when they weremost unrestrictedly worshipped. For in various times andplaces before the advent of our Redeemer, the human race wascrushed with numberless and sometimes incredible calamities;and at that time what gods but those did the world worship,if you except the one nation of the Hebrews, and, beyond them,such individuals as the most secret and most just judgmentof God counted worthy of divine grace? ¹ But that I may1 Compare Aug. Epist, ad Deogratias, 102, 13; and De Præd. Sanct. 19.92 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK III. .not be prolix, I will be silent regarding the heavy calamitiesthat have been suffered by any other nations, and will speakonly of what happened to Rome and the Roman empire, bywhich I mean Rome properly so called, and those lands whichalready, before the coming of Christ, had by alliance or conquest become, as it were, members of the body of the state.2. Whether the gods, whom the Greeks and Romans worshipped in common,werejustified in permitting the destruction of Ilium.First, then, why was Troy or Ilium, the cradle of theRoman people (for I must not overlook nor disguise what Itouched upon in the first book¹) , conquered, taken, and destroyed by the Greeks, though it esteemed and worshippedthe same gods as they? Priam, some answer, paid thepenalty of the perjury of his father Laomedon. Then it istrue that Laomedon hired Apollo and Neptune as his workmen. For the story goes that he promised them wages, andthen broke his bargain. I wonder that famous diviner Apollotoiled at so huge a work, and never suspected Laomedon wasgoing to cheat him of his pay. And Neptune too, his uncle,brother of Jupiter, king of the sea, it really was not seemlythat he should be ignorant of what was to happen. For heis introduced by Homer (who lived and wrote before thebuilding of Rome) as predicting something great of the posterity of Æneas, who in fact founded Rome. And as Homersays, Neptune also rescued Æneas in a cloud from the wrath ofAchilles, though (according to Virgil *)" All his will was to destroyHis own creation, perjured Troy. "Gods, then, so great as Apollo and Neptune, in ignorance ofthe cheat that was to defraud them of their wages, built thewalls of Troy for nothing but thanks and thankless people.5There may be some doubt whether it is not a worse crime tobelieve such persons to be gods, than to cheat such gods.Even Homer himself did not give full credence to the story;for while he represents Neptune, indeed, as hostile to theTrojans, he introduces Apollo as their champion, though thestory implies that both were offended by that fraud. If, there2 Virg. Georg. i. 502, ' Laomedonteæ luimus perjuria Trojæ. '5 Gratis et ingratis.1 Ch. iv.3 Iliad, xx. 293 et seqq. Eneid, v. 810, 811 .BOOK III . ]INCONSISTENCY OF THE GODS. 93explain how the gods hatedFor how did the conspiracycorrupt a city, find so abunfore, they believe their fables, let them blush to worship suchgods; if they discredit the fables, let no more be said of the"Trojan perjury; " or let themTrojan, but loved Roman perjury.of Catiline, even in so large anddant a supply of men whose hands and tongues found them aliving by perjury and civic broils? What else but perjurycorrupted the judgments pronounced by so many of the senators? What else corrupted the people's votes and decisionsof all causes tried before them? For it seems that theancient practice of taking oaths has been preserved even inthe midst of the greatest corruption, not for the sake of restraining wickedness by religious fear, but to complete the taleof crimes by adding that of perjury.3. That the gods could not be offended by the adultery of Paris, this crime beingso common among themselves.There is no ground, then, for representing the gods (bywhom, as they say, that empire stood, though they are provedto have been conquered by the Greeks) as being enraged at theTrojan perjury. Neither, as others again plead in their defence, was it indignation at the adultery of Paris that causedthem to withdraw their protection from Troy. For theirhabit is to be instigators and instructors in vice, not itsavengers. "The city of Rome," says Sallust, " was first builtand inhabited, as I have heard, by the Trojans, who, flyingtheir country, under the conduct of Æneas, wandered aboutwithout making any settlement." If, then, the gods wereof opinion that the adultery of Paris should be punished, itwas chiefly the Romans, or at least the Romans also, whoshould have suffered; for the adultery was brought about byÆneas' mother. But how could they hate in Paris a crimewhich they made no objection to in their own sister Venus,who (not to mention any other instance) committed adulterywith Anchises, and so became the mother of Æneas? Is itbecause in the one case Menelaus was aggrieved, while inthe other Vulcan connived at the crime? For the gods, Ifancy, are so little jealous of their wives, that they make noscruple of sharing them with men. But perhaps I may be1 De Conj. Cat. vi. 2 Helen's husband. Venus' husband.94 [BOOK III. THE CITY OF GOD.suspected of turning the myths into ridicule, and not handlingso weighty a subject with sufficient gravity. Well, then, letus say that Æneas is not the son of Venus. I am willing toadmit it; but is Romulus any more the son of Mars? Forwhy not the one as well as the other? Or is it lawful forgods to have intercourse with women, unlawful for men tohave intercourse with goddesses? A hard, or rather an incredible condition, that what was allowed to Mars by the lawof Venus, should not be allowed to Venus herself by her ownlaw. However, both cases have the authority of Rome; forCæsar in modern times believed no less that he was descendedfrom Venus,¹ than the ancient Romulus believed himself theson of Mars.4. Of Varro's opinion, that it is useful for men to feign themselves the offspringofthe gods.Some one will say, But do you believe all this? Not Iindeed. For even Varro, a very learned heathen, all butadmits that these stories are false, though he does not boldlyand confidently say so. But he maintains it is useful forstates that brave men believe, though falsely, that they aredescended from the gods; for that thus the human spirit,cherishing the belief of its divine descent, will both moreboldly venture into great enterprises, and will carry them outmore energetically, and will therefore by its very confidencesecure more abundant success. You see how wide a field isopened to falsehood by this opinion of Varro's, which I haveexpressed as well as I could in my own words; and howcomprehensible it is, that many of the religions and sacredlegends should be feigned in a community in which it wasjudged profitable for the citizens that lies should be told evenabout the gods themselves.5. That it is not credible that the gods should have punished the adultery ofParis, seeing they showed no indignation at the adultery of the mother ofRomulus.But whether Venus could bear Æneas to a human fatherAnchises, or Mars beget Romulus of the daughter of Numitor,' Suetonius, in his Life ofJulius Cæsar (c. 6) , relates that, in pronouncing afuneral oration in praise of his aunt Julia, Cæsar claimed for the Julian gens towhich his family belonged a descent from Venus, through Iulus, son of Eneas.BOOK III. ] THE CRIME OF ROMULUS UNPUNISHED. 95we leave as unsettled questions. For our own Scripturessuggest the very similar question, whether the fallen angelshad sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, by whichthe earth was at that time filled with giants, that is, with enormously large and strong men. At present, then, I will limitmy discussion to this dilemma: If that which their booksrelate about the mother of Eneas and the father of Romulusbe true, how can the gods be displeased with men for adulterieswhich, when committed bythemselves, excite no displeasure?If it is false, not even in this case can the gods be angry thatmen should really commit adulteries, which, even when falselyattributed to the gods, they delight in. Moreover, if theadultery of Mars be discredited, that Venus also may be freedfrom the imputation, then the mother of Romulus is left unshielded by the pretext of a divine seduction. For Sylviawas a vestal priestess, and the gods ought to avenge this sacrilege on the Romans with greater severity than Paris' adulteryon the Trojans. For even the Romans themselves in primitive times used to go so far as to bury alive any vestal whowas detected in adultery, while women unconsecrated, thoughthey were punished, were never punished with death for thatcrime; and thus they more earnestly vindicated the purity ofshrines they esteemed divine, than of the human bed.6. Thatthe gods exacted no penalty for the fratricidal act ofRomulus.I add another instance: If the sins of men so greatly incensed those divinities, that they abandoned Troy to fire andsword to punish the crime of Paris, the murder of Romulus'brother ought to have incensed them more against the Romansthan the cajoling of a Greek husband moved them against theTrojans fratricide in a newly-born city should have provokedthem more than adultery in a city already flourishing. Itmakes no difference to the question we now discuss, whetherRomulus ordered his brother to be slain, or slew him with hisown hand; a crime this latter which many shamelessly deny,many through shame doubt, many in grief disguise. And weshall not pause to examine and weigh the testimonies of historical writers on the subject. All agree that the brother ofRomulus was slain, not by enemies, not by strangers. If it96 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK III.was Romulus who either commanded or perpetrated this crime;Romulus was more truly the head of the Romans than Parisof the Trojans; why then did he who carried off another man'swife bring down the anger of the gods on the Trojans, while hewho took his brother's life obtained the guardianship of thosesame gods? If, on the other hand, that crime was not wroughteither by the hand or will of Romulus, then the whole city ischargeable with it, because it did not see to its punishment,and thus committed, not fratricide, but parricide, which is worse.For both brothers were the founders of that city, of which theone was by villany prevented from being a ruler.I see, then, no evil can be ascribed to Troy which warrantedthe gods in abandoning it to destruction, nor any good to Romewhich accounts for the gods visiting it with prosperity; unless the truth be, that they fled from Troy because they werevanquished, and betook themselves to Rome to practise theircharacteristic deceptions there. Nevertheless they kept afooting for themselves in Troy, that they might deceive futureinhabitants who repeopled these lands; while at Rome, by awider exercise of their malignant arts, they exulted in moreabundant honours.So far as7. Ofthe destruction ofIlium by Fimbria, a lieutenant ofMarius.1And surely we may ask what wrong poor Ilium had done,that, in the first heat of the civil wars of Rome, it shouldsuffer at the hand of Fimbria, the veriest villain amongMarius' partisans, a more fierce and cruel destruction thanthe Grecian sack. For when the Greeks took it manyescaped, and many who did not escape were suffered tolive, though in captivity. But Fimbria from the first gaveorders that not a life should be spared, and burnt up togetherthe city and all its inhabitants. Thus was Ilium requited,not by the Greeks, whom she had provoked by wrong- doing;but by the Romans, who had been built out of her ruins;while the gods, adored alike of both sides, did simply nothing,or, to speak more correctly, could do nothing. Is it then true,that at this time also, after Troy had repaired the damagedone by the Grecian fire, all the gods by whose help the kingdom stood, " forsook each fane, each sacred shrine?"1 Livy, 83, one of the lost books; and Appian, in Mithridat.BOOK III . ] THE GODS POWERLESS. 97But if so, I ask the reason; for in my judgment, the conduct of the gods was as much to be reprobated as that of thetownsmen to be applauded. For these closed their gatesagainst Fimbria, that they might preserve the city for Sylla,and were therefore burnt and consumed by the enragedgeneral. Now, up to this time, Sylla's cause was the moreworthy of the two; for till now he used arms to restore therepublic, and as yet his good intentions had met with noreverses. What better thing, then, could the Trojans havedone? What more honourable, what more faithful to Rome, ormore worthy of her relationship, than to preserve their city forthe better part of the Romans, and to shut their gates againsta parricide of his country? It is for the defenders of thegods to consider the ruin which this conduct brought on Troy.The gods deserted an adulterous people, and abandoned Troyto the fires of the Greeks, that out of her ashes a chasterRome might arise. But why did they a second time abandon this same town, allied now to Rome, and not makingwar upon her noble daughter, but preserving a most stedfastand pious fidelity to Rome's most justifiable faction? Why didthey give her up to be destroyed, not by the Greek heroes,but by the basest of the Romans? Or, if the gods did notfavour Sylla's cause, for which the unhappy Trojans maintained their city, why did they themselves predict and promise Sylla such successes? Must we call them flatterers ofthe fortunate, rather than helpers of the wretched? Troy wasnot destroyed, then, because the gods deserted it. For thedemons, always watchful to deceive, did what they could.For, when all the statues were overthrown and burnt togetherwith the town, Livy tells us that only the image of Minervais said to have been found standing uninjured amidst theruins of her temple; not that it might be said in their praise,"The gods who made this realm divine," but that it might notbe said in their defence, They are " gone from each fane, eachsacred shrine: " for that marvel was permitted to them, notthat they might be proved to be powerful, but that they mightbe convicted of being present.8. Whether Rome ought to have been entrusted to the Trojan gods?Where, then, was the wisdom of entrusting Rome to theVOL. I. G98 [ BOOK III.THE CITY OF GOD.Trojan gods, who had demonstrated their weakness in theloss of Troy? Will some one say that, when Fimbriastormed Troy, the gods were already resident in Rome?How, then, did the image of Minerva remain standing?Besides, if they were at Rome when Fimbria destroyed Troy,perhaps they were at Troy when Rome itself was taken and seton fire by the Gauls. But as they are very acute in hearing,and very swift in their movements, they came quickly at thecackling of the goose to defend at least the Capitol, though todefend the rest of the city they were too long in being warned.9. Whether it is credible that the peace during the reign of Numa was broughtabout bythe gods.It is also believed that it was by the help of the gods thatthe successor of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, enjoyed peaceduring his entire reign, and shut the gates of Janus, whichare customarily kept open¹ during war. And it is supposedhe was thus requited for appointing many religious observances among the Romans. Certainly that king would havecommanded our congratulations for so rare a leisure, had hebeen wise enough to spend it on wholesome pursuits, and,subduing a pernicious curiosity, had sought out the true Godwith true piety. But as it was, the gods were not the authorsof his leisure; but possibly they would have deceived him lesshad they found him busier. For the more disengaged theyfound him, the more they themselves occupied his attention.Varro informs us of all his efforts, and of the arts he employedto associate these gods with himself and the city; and in itsown place, if God will, I shall discuss these matters. Meanwhile, as we are speaking of the benefits conferred by thegods, I readily admit that peace is a great benefit; but it isa benefit of the true God, which, like the sun, the rain, andother supports of life, is frequently conferred on the ungrateful and wicked. But if this great boon was conferred onRome and Pompilius by their gods, why did they never afterwards grant it to the Roman empire during even more meritorious periods? Were the sacred rites more efficient at1 The gates of Janus were not the gates of a temple, but the gates of a passagecalled Janus, which was used only for military purposes; shut therefore in peace,open in war.BOOK III. ] PEACE NOT THE GIFT OF THE GODS. 99their first institution than during their subsequent celebration? But they had no existence in Numa's time, until headded them to the ritual; whereas afterwards they hadalready been celebrated and preserved, that benefit mightarise from them. How, then, is it that those forty-three, oras others prefer it, thirty-nine years of Numa's reign, werepassed in unbroken peace, and yet that afterwards, when theworship was established, and the gods themselves, who wereinvoked by it, were the recognised guardians and patrons ofthe city, we can with difficulty find during the whole period,from the building of the city to the reign of Augustus, oneyear-that, viz. , which followed the close of the first Punicwar-in which, for a marvel, the Romans were able to shutthe gates of war?¹10. Whether it was desirable that the Roman empire should be increased by suchafurious succession of wars, when it might have been quiet and safe byfollowing in the peaceful ways ofNuma.Do they reply that the Roman empire could never havebeen so widely extended, nor so glorious, save by constantand unintermitting wars? A fit argument, truly! Whymust a kingdom be distracted in order to be great? In thislittle world of man's body, is it not better to have a moderatestature, and health with it, than to attain the huge dimensionsof a giant by unnatural torments, and when you attain it tofind no rest, but to be pained the more in proportion to thesize of your members? What evil would have resulted, orrather what good would not have resulted, had those timescontinued which Sallust sketched, when he says, “ At first thekings (for that was the first title of empire in the world) weredivided in their sentiments: part cultivated the mind, othersthe body at that time the life of men was led withoutcovetousness; every one was sufficiently satisfied with hisown! "2 Was it requisite, then, for Rome's prosperity, that thestate of things which Virgil reprobates should succeed:"At length stole on a baser age,And war's indomitable rage,And greedy lust of gain? " 31 The year of the Consuls T. Manlius and C. Atilius, A.U.C. 519.2 Sall. Conj. Cat. ii. Eneid, viii. 326-7.瞽100 [BOOK III.THE CITY OF GOD." 1But obviously the Romans have a plausible defence forundertaking and carrying on such disastrous wars, —to wit,that the pressure of their enemies forced them to resist, sothat they were compelled to fight, not by any greed of humanapplause, but by the necessity of protecting life and liberty.Well, let that pass. Here is Sallust's account of the matter:"For when their state, enriched with laws, institutions, territory, seemed abundantly prosperous and sufficiently powerful,according to the ordinary law of human nature, opulence gavebirth to envy. Accordingly, the neighbouring kings and statestook arms and assaulted them. A few allies lent assistance;the rest, struck with fear, kept aloof from dangers. But theRomans, watchful at home and in war, were active, made preparations, encouraged one another, marched to meet theirenemies, protected by arms their liberty, country, parents.Afterwards, when they had repelled the dangers by theirbravery, they carried help to their allies and friends, and procured alliances more by conferring than by receiving favours."This was to build up Rome's greatness by honourable means.But, in Numa's reign, I would know whether the long peacewas maintained in spite of the incursions of wicked neighbours, or if these incursions were discontinued that the peacemight be maintained? For if even then Rome was harassedby wars, and yet did not meet force with force, the samemeans she then used to quiet her enemies without conqueringthem in war, or terrifying them with the onset of battle, shemight have used always, and have reigned in peace with thegates of Janus shut. And if this was not in her power, thenRome enjoyed peace not at the will of her gods, but at thewill of her neighbours round about, and only so long as theycared to provoke her with no war, unless perhaps these pitifulgods will dare to sell to one man as their favour what lies notin their power to bestow, but in the will of another man.These demons, indeed, in so far as they are permitted, canterrify or incite the minds of wicked men by their own peculiar wickedness. But if they always had this power, and ifno action were taken against their efforts by a more secretand higher power, they would be supreme to give peace or1 Sall. Cat. Conj. vi.BOOK III.]APOLLO'S TEARS. 101the victories of war, which almost always fall out throughsome human emotion, and frequently in opposition to the willof the gods, as is proved not only by lying legends, whichscarcely hint or signify any grain of truth, but even byRoman history itself.11. Ofthe statue of Apollo at Cuma, whose tears are supposed to have portendeddisaster to the Greeks, whom the god was unable to succour.And it is still this weakness of the gods which is confessedin the story of the Cuman Apollo, who is said to have weptfor four days during the war with the Achæans and KingAristonicus. And when the augurs were alarmed at theportent, and had determined to cast the statue into the sea,the old men of Cuma interposed, and related that a similarprodigy had occurred to the same image during the warsagainst Antiochus and against Perseus, and that by a decreeof the senate gifts had been presented to Apollo, because theevent had proved favourable to the Romans. Then soothsayers were summoned who were supposed to have greaterprofessional skill, and they pronounced that the weeping ofApollo's image was propitious to the Romans, because Cumæwas a Greek colony, and that Apollo was bewailing (andthereby presaging) the grief and calamity that was about tolight upon his own land of Greece, from which he had beenbrought. Shortly afterwards it was reported that King Aristonicus was defeated and made prisoner, -a defeat certainlyopposed to the will of Apollo; and this he indicated by evenshedding tears from his marble image. And this shows usthat, though the verses of the poets are mythical, they are notaltogether devoid of truth, but describe the manners of thedemons in a sufficiently fit style. For in Virgil Dianamourned for Camilla,¹ and Hercules wept for Pallas doomedto die. This is perhaps the reason why Numa Pompilius,too, when, enjoying prolonged peace, but without knowing orinquiring from whom he received it, he began in his leisureto consider to what gods he should entrust the safe keepingand conduct of Rome, and not dreaming that the true,almighty, and most high God cares for earthly affairs, butrecollecting only that the Trojan gods which Æneas had¹ Æneid, xi. 532.2 Ibid. x. 464.102 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK III.brought to Italy had been able to preserve neither the Trojannor Lavinian kingdom founded by Eneas himself, concludedthat he must provide other gods as guardians of fugitivesand helpers of the weak, and add them to those earlierdivinities who had either come over to Rome with Romulus,or when Alba was destroyed.12. That the Romans added a vast number ofgods to those introduced byNuma, and that their numbers helped them not at all.2But though Pompilius introduced so ample a ritual, yet didnot Rome see fit to be content with it. For as yet Jupiterhimself had not his chief temple,-it being King Tarquinwho built the Capitol. And Esculapius left Epidaurus forRome, that in this foremost city he might have a finer fieldfor the exercise of his great medical skill. The mother ofthe gods, too, came I know not whence from Pessinuns; itbeing unseemly that, while her son presided on the Capitolinehill, she herself should lie hid in obscurity. But if she is themother of all the gods, she not only followed some of herchildren to Rome, but left others to follow her. I wonder,indeed, if she were the mother of Cynocephalus, who a longwhile afterwards came from Egypt. Whether also the goddess.Fever was her offspring, is a matter for her grandson Esculapius to decide. But of whatever breed she be, the foreign.gods will not presume, I trust, to call a goddess base-born whois a Roman citizen. Who can number the deities to whomthe guardianship of Rome was entrusted? Indigenous andimported, both of heaven, earth, hell, seas, fountains, rivers;and, as Varro says, gods certain and uncertain, male andfemale for, as among animals, so among all kinds of gods.are there these distinctions. Rome, then, enjoying the protection of such a cloud of deities, might surely have been preserved from some of those great and horrible calamities, ofwhich I can mention but a few. For by the great smoke ofher altars she summoned to her protection, as by a beaconfire, a host of gods, for whom she appointed and maintainedtemples, altars, sacrifices, priests, and thus offended the trueand most high God, to whom alone all this ceremonial is lawfully due. And, indeed, she was more prosperous when she¹ Livy, x. 47. 2 Being son of Apollo.BOOK III. ] BLOODY NUPTIALS OF THE ROMANS. 103had fewer gods; but the greater she became, the more godsshe thought she should have, as the larger ship needs to bemanned by a larger crew. I suppose she despaired of thesmaller number, under whose protection she had spent comparatively happy days, being able to defend her greatness.For even under the kings (with the exception of Numa Pompilius, of whom I have already spoken) , how wicked a contentiousness must have existed to occasion the death ofRomulus' brother!13. By what right or agreement the Romans obtained their first wives.How is it that neither Juno, who with her husband Jupitereven then cherished"Rome's sons, the nation of the gown,'" 1nor Venus herself, could assist the children of the lovedEneas to find wives by some right and equitable means?For the lack of this entailed upon the Romans the lamentablenecessity of stealing their wives, and then waging war withtheir fathers-in-law; so that the wretched women, before theyhad recovered from the wrong done them by their husbands,were dowried with the blood of their fathers. "But theRomans conquered their neighbours." Yes; but with whatwounds on both sides, and with what sad slaughter of relativesand neighbours! The war of Cæsar and Pompey was thecontest of only one father-in-law with one son-in-law; andbefore it began, the daughter of Cæsar, Pompey's wife, wasalready dead. But with how keen and just an accent of griefdoes Lucan2 exclaim: " I sing that worse than civil warwaged in the plains of Emathia, and in which the crime wasjustified by the victory!"The Romans, then, conquered that they might, with handsstained in the blood of their fathers-in-law, wrench themiserable girls from their embrace, -girls who dared notweep for their slain parents, for fear of offending their victorious husbands; and while yet the battle was raging, stoodwith their prayers on their lips, and knew not for whom toutter them. Such nuptials were certainly prepared for theRoman people not by Venus, but Bellona; or possibly that¹ Virgil, En. i. 286. 2 Pharsal. v. 1.104 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK III. .infernal fury Alecto had more liberty to injure them now thatJuno was aiding them, than when the prayers of that goddess.had excited her against Æneas. Andromache in captivitywas happier than these Roman brides. For though she was aslave, yet, after she had become the wife of Pyrrhus, no moreTrojans fell by his hand; but the Romans slew in battle thevery fathers of the brides they fondled. Andromache, thevictor's captive, could only mourn, not fear, the death of herpeople. The Sabine women, related to men still combatants,feared the death of their fathers when their husbands wentout to battle, and mourned their death as they returned, whileneither their grief nor their fear could be freely expressed.For the victories of their husbands, involving the destructionof fellow- townsmen, relatives, brothers, fathers, caused eitherpious agony or cruel exultation. Moreover, as the fortune ofwar is capricious, some of them lost their husbands by thesword of their parents, while others lost husband and fathertogether in mutual destruction. For the Romans by no meansescaped with impunity, but they were driven back withintheir walls, and defended themselves behind closed gates; andwhen the gates were opened by guile, and the enemy admittedinto the town, the Forum itself was the field of a hateful andfierce engagement of fathers-in-law and sons-in-law. Theravishers were indeed quite defeated, and, flying on all sidesto their houses, sullied with new shame their original shameful and lamentable triumph. It was at this juncture thatRomulus, hoping no more from the valour of his citizens,prayed Jupiter that they might stand their ground; and fromthis occasion the god gained the name of Stator. But noteven thus would the mischief have been finished, had not theravished women themselves flashed out with dishevelled hair,and cast themselves before their parents, and thus disarmedtheir just rage, not with the arms of victory, but with thesupplications of filial affection. Then Romulus, who couldnot brook his own brother as a colleague, was compelled toaccept Titus Tatius, king of the Sabines, as his partner on thethrone. But how long would he who misliked the fellowshipof his own twin-brother endure a stranger? So, Tatius beingslain, Romulus remained sole king, that he might be theBOOK III . ] UNNATURAL WARS OF THE ROMANS. 105greater god. See what rights of marriage these were thatfomented unnatural wars. These were the Roman leagues ofkindred, relationship, alliance, religion. This was the life ofthe city so abundantly protected by the gods. You see howmany severe things might be said on this theme; but our purpose carries us past them, and requires our discourse for othermatters.14. Ofthe wickedness of the war waged by the Romans against the Albans, andof the victories won by the lust ofpower.But what happened after Numa's reign, and under the otherkings, when the Albans were provoked into war, with sad results not to themselves alone, but also to the Romans? Thelong peace of Numa had become tedious; and with whatendless slaughter and detriment of both states did the Romanand Alban armies bring it to an end! For Alba, which hadbeen founded by Ascanius, son of Æneas, and which was moreproperly the mother of Rome than Troy herself, was provokedto battle by Tullus Hostilius, king of Rome, and in the conflictboth inflicted and received such damage, that at length bothparties wearied of the struggle. It was then devised that thewar should be decided by the combat of three twin-brothersfrom each army: from the Romans the three Horatii stoodforward, from the Albans the three Curiatii. Two of theHoratii were overcome and disposed of by the Curiatii; butby the remaining Horatius the three Curiatii were slain. ThusRome remained victorious, but with such a sacrifice that onlyone survivor returned to his home. Whose was the loss onboth sides? Whose the grief, but of the offspring of Æneas, thedescendants of Ascanius, the progeny of Venus, the grandsons ofJupiter? For this, too, was a " worse than civil " war, in whichthe belligerent states were mother and daughter. And to thiscombat of the three twin-brothers there was added anotheratrocious and horrible catastrophe. For as the two nationshad formerly been friendly (being related and neighbours), thesister of the Horatii had been betrothed to one of the Curiatii;and she, when she saw her brother wearing the spoils of herbetrothed, burst into tears, and was slain by her own brother inhis anger. To me, this one girl seems to have been more humanethan the whole Roman people. I cannot think her to blame for106 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK III..lamenting the man to whom already she had plighted her troth,or, as perhaps she was doing, for grieving that her brother shouldhave slain him to whom he had promised his sister. For whydo we praise the grief of Æneas (in Virgil ¹ ) over the enemy cutdown even by his own hand? Why did Marcellus shed tearsover the city of Syracuse, when he recollected, just before hedestroyed, its magnificence and meridian glory, and thoughtupon the common lot of all things? I demand, in the nameof humanity, that if men are praised for tears shed over enemies conquered by themselves, a weak girl should not becounted criminal for bewailing her lover slaughtered by thehand of her brother. While, then, that maiden was weepingfor the death of her betrothed inflicted by her brother's hand,Rome was rejoicing that such devastation had been wroughton her mother state, and that she had purchased a victory withsuch an expenditure of the common blood of herself and theAlbans.Why allege to me the mere names and words of " glory " and"victory?" Tear off the disguise of wild delusion, and look atthe naked deeds: weigh them naked, judge them naked. Letthe charge be brought against Alba, as Troy was charged withadultery. There is no such charge, none like it found: thewar was kindled only in order that there" Might sound in languid ears the cryOf Tullus and of victory. "2This vice of restless ambition was the sole motive to thatsocial and parricidal war,-a vice which Sallust brands inpassing; for when he has spoken with brief but hearty commendation of those primitive times in which life was spentwithout covetousness, and every one was sufficiently satisfiedwith what he had, he goes on: " But after Cyrus in Asia, andthe Lacedemonians and Athenians in Greece, began to subduecities and nations, and to account the lust of sovereignty asufficient ground for war, and to reckon that the greatest glory1 Eneid, x. 821 , of Lausus:"But when Anchises' son surveyedThe fair, fair face so ghastly made,He groaned, by tenderness unmanned,And stretched the sympathizing hand, ” etc.2 Virgil, Eneid, vi. 813.BOOK III . ] THE GODS BLOODTHIRSTY. 107So.consisted in the greatest empire; " ¹ and so on, as I need not nowquote. This lust of sovereignty disturbs and consumes thehuman race with frightful ills. By this lust Rome was overcome when she triumphed over Alba, and praising her owncrime, called it glory. For, as our Scriptures say, " the wickedboasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whomthe Lord abhorreth. "2 Away, then, with these deceitful masks,these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seenand scrutinized, Let no man tell me that this and the otherwas a " great " man, because he fought and conquered so andGladiators fight and conquer, and this barbarism has itsmeed of praise; but I think it were better to take the consequences of any sloth, than to seek the glory won by sucharms. And if two gladiators entered the arena to fight, onebeing father, the other his son, who would endure such a spectacle? who would not be revolted by it? How, then, couldthat be a glorious war which a daughter- state waged againstits mother? Or did it constitute a difference, that the battlefield was not an arena, and that the wide plains were filledwith the carcases not of two gladiators, but of many of theflower of two nations; and that those contests were viewed notby the amphitheatre, but by the whole world, and furnished aprofane spectacle both to those alive at the time, and to theirposterity, so long as the fame of it is handed down?Yet those gods, guardians of the Roman empire, and, as itwere, theatric spectators of such contests as these, were notsatisfied until the sister of the Horatii was added by herbrother's sword as a third victim from the Roman side, so thatRome herself, though she won the day, should have as manydeaths to mourn. Afterwards, as a fruit of the victory, Albawas destroyed, though it was there the Trojan gods had formeda third asylum after Ilium had been sacked by the Greeks, andafter they had left Lavinium, where Æneas had founded akingdom in a land of banishment. But probably Alba wasdestroyed because from it too the gods had migrated, in theirusual fashion, as Virgil says:"Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,Are those who made this realm divine. 1131 Sallust, Cat. Conj. ii. 2 Ps. x. 3. Eneid, ii. 351-2.108 THE [ BOOK III.CITY OF GOD.were one.Gone, indeed, and from now their third asylum, that Romemight seem all the wiser in committing herself to them afterthey had deserted three other cities . Alba, whose kingAmulius had banished his brother, displeased them; Rome,whose king Romulus had slain his brother, pleased them. Butbefore Alba was destroyed, its population, they say, was amalgamated with the inhabitants of Rome, so that the two citiesWell, admitting it was so, yet the fact remainsthat the city of Ascanius, the third retreat of the Trojan gods,was destroyed by the daughter-city. Besides, to effect thispitiful conglomerate of the war's leavings, much blood wasspilt on both sides. And how shall I speak in detail ofthe same wars, so often renewed in subsequent reigns, thoughthey seemed to have been finished by great victories; and ofwars that time after time were brought to an end by greatslaughters, and which yet time after time were renewedby the posterity of those who had made peace and strucktreaties? Of this calamitous history we have no small proof,in the fact that no subsequent king closed the gates of war;and therefore, with all their tutelar gods, no one of themreigned in peace.15. What manner of life and death the Roman kings had.And what was the end ofthe kings themselves? OfRomulus, a flattering legend tells us that he was assumed intoheaven. But certain Roman historians relate that he wastorn in pieces by the senate for his ferocity, and that a man,Julius Proculus, was suborned to give out that Romulus hadappeared to him, and through him commanded the Romanpeople to worship him as a god; and that in this way thepeople, who were beginning to resent the action of the senate,were quieted and pacified. For an eclipse of the sun had alsohappened; and this was attributed to the divine power ofRomulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know thatit was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun's course:though this grief of the sun might rather have been considered proof that Romulus had been slain, and that the crimewas indicated by this deprivation of the sun's light; as, intruth, was the case when the Lord was crucified through theBOOK III.] BLOODY DEATHS OF THE ROMAN KINGS. 1091 cruelty and impiety of the Jews. For it is sufficiently demonstrated that this latter obscuration of the sun did not occurby the natural laws of the heavenly bodies, because it wasthen the Jewish passover, which is held only at full moon,whereas natural eclipses of the sun happen only at the lastquarter of the moon. Cicero, too, shows plainly enough that'✅the apotheosis of Romulus was imaginary rather than real, when,even while he is praising him in one of Scipio's remarks in theDe Republica, he says: " Such a reputation had he acquired,that when he suddenly disappeared during an eclipse of thesun, he was supposed to have been assumed into the numberof the gods, which could be supposed of no mortal who hadnot the highest reputation for virtue. " By these words, " hesuddenly disappeared," we are to understand that he was mysteriously made away with by the violence either of the tempestor of a murderous assault. For their other writers speak notonly of an eclipse, but of a sudden storm also, which certainlyeither afforded opportunity for the crime, or itself made an endof Romulus. And of Tullus Hostilius, who was the third kingof Rome, and who was himself destroyed by lightning, Ciceroin the same book says, that " he was not supposed to have beendeified by this death, possibly because the Romans were unwilling to vulgarize the promotion they were assured or persuaded of in the case of Romulus, lest they should bring itinto contempt by gratuitously assigning it to all and sundry."In one of his invectives, too, he says, in round terms, "Thefounder of this city, Romulus, we have raised to immortalityand divinity by kindly celebrating his services; " implyingthat his deification was not real, but reputed, and called soby courtesy on account of his virtues. In the dialogue Hortensius, too, while speaking of the regular eclipses of the sun,he says that they " produce the same darkness as coveredthe death of Romulus, which happened during an eclipseof the sun." Here you see he does not at all shrink fromspeaking of his " death," for Cicero was more of a reasonerthan an eulogist.The other kings of Rome, too, with the exception of NumaPompilius and Ancus Marcius, who died natural deaths, what1 Cicero, De Rep. ii. 10. 2 Contra Cat. iii. 2.110 THE [BOOK III.CITY OF GOD.horrible ends they had! Tullus Hostilius, the conqueror anddestroyer of Alba, was, as I said, himself and all his houseconsumed by lightning. Priscus Tarquinius was slain by hispredecessor's sons. Servius Tullius was foully murdered byhis son-in-law Tarquinius Superbus, who succeeded him on thethrone. Nor did so flagrant a parricide committed againstRome's best king drive from their altars and shrines those godswho were said to have been moved by Paris' adultery to treatpoor Troy in this style, and abandon it to the fire and swordof the Greeks. Nay, the very Tarquin who had murdered, wasallowed to succeed his father-in-law. And this infamous parricide, during the reign he had secured by murder, was allowedto triumph in many victorious wars, and to build the Capitolfrom their spoils; the gods meanwhile not departing, but abiding,and abetting, and suffering their king Jupiter to preside andreign over them in that very splendid Capitol, the work of aparricide. For he did not build the Capitol in the days ofhis innocence, and then suffer banishment for subsequentcrimes; but to that reign during which he built the Capitol,he won his way by unnatural crime. And when he was afterwards banished by the Romans, and forbidden the city, itwas not for his own but his son's wickedness in the affair ofLucretia, a crime perpetrated not only without his cognizance, but in his absence. For at that time he was besiegingArdea, and fighting Rome's battles; and we cannot say whathe would have done had he been aware of his son's crime.Notwithstanding, though his opinion was neither inquired intonor ascertained, the people stripped him of royalty; and whenhe returned to Rome with his army, it was admitted, but hewas excluded, abandoned by his troops, and the gates shut inhis face. And yet, after he had appealed to the neighbouringstates, and tormented the Romans with calamitous but unsuccessful wars, and when he was deserted by the ally onwhom he most depended, despairing of regaining the kingdom,he lived a retired and quiet life for fourteen years, as itis reported, in Tusculum, a Roman town, where he grew oldin his wife's company, and at last terminated his days in amuch more desirable fashion than his father-in-law, who hadperished by the hand of his son-in-law; his own daughterBOOK III . ] THE FIRST ROMAN CONSULS. 111abetting, if report be true. And this Tarquin the Romanscalled, not the Cruel, nor the Infamous, but the Proud; theirown pride perhaps resenting his tyrannical airs. So little didthey make of his murdering their best king, his own fatherin-law, that they elected him their own king. I wonder if itwas not even more criminal in them to reward so bountifullyso great a criminal. And yet there was no word of the godsabandoning the altars; unless, perhaps, some one will say indefence of the gods, that they remained at Rome for the purpose of punishing the Romans, rather than of aiding and profiting them, seducing them by empty victories, and wearing themout by severe wars. Such was the life of the Romans underthe kings during the much-praised epoch of the state whichextends to the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus in the 243dyear, during which all those victories, which were bought withso much blood and such disasters, hardly pushed Rome'sdominion twenty miles from the city; a territory which wouldby no means bear comparison with that of any petty Gætulianstate.16. Ofthe first Roman consuls, the one ofwhom drove the other from the country,and shortly after perished at Rome by the hand of a wounded enemy,and so ended a career of unnatural murders.To this epoch let us add also that of which Sallust says,that it was ordered with justice and moderation, while thefear of Tarquin and of a war with Etruria was impending. Forso long as the Etrurians aided the efforts of Tarquin to regainthe throne, Rome was convulsed with distressing war. Andtherefore he says that the state was ordered with justice andmoderation, through the pressure of fear, not through the influence of equity. And in this very brief period, how calamitous a year was that in which consuls were first created, whenthe kingly power was abolished! They did not fulfil theirterm of office. For Junius Brutus deprived his colleagueLucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and banished him from thecity; and shortly after he himself fell in battle, at onceslaying and slain, having formerly put to death his own sonsand his brothers-in-law, because he had discovered that theywere conspiring to restore Tarquin. It is this deed that112 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK III. .Virgil shudders to record, even while he seems to praise it;for when he says," And call his own rebellious seedFor menaced liberty to bleed, "he immediately exclaims," Unhappy father! howsoe'erThe deed be judged by after days; "that is to say, let posterity judge the deed as they please,let them praise and extol the father who slew his sons, he isunhappy. And then he adds, as if to console so unhappy aman:"His country's love shall all o'erbear,And unextinguished thirst of praise. 'In the tragic end" 1of Brutus, who slew his own sons, andthough he slew his enemy, Tarquin's son, yet could not survive him, but was survived by Tarquin the elder, does notthe innocence of his colleague Collatinus seem to be vindicated, who, though a good citizen, suffered the same punishment as Tarquin himself, when that tyrant was banished?For Brutus himself is said to have been a relative of Tarquin. But Collatinus had the misfortune to bear not onlythe blood, but the name of Tarquin. To change his name,then, not his country, would have been his fit penalty: toabridge his name by this word, and be called simply L. Collatinus. But he was not compelled to lose what he couldlose without detriment, but was stripped of the honour of thefirst consulship, and was banished from the land he loved. Isthis, then, the glory of Brutus-this injustice, alike detestableand profitless to the republic? Was it to this he was drivenby " his country's love, and unextinguished thirst of praise?"When Tarquin the tyrant was expelled, L. Tarquinius Collatinus, the husband of Lucretia, was created consul alongwith Brutus. How justly the people acted, in looking moreto the character than the name of a citizen! How unjustlyBrutus acted, in depriving of honour and country his colleaguein that new office, whom he might have deprived of his name,if it were so offensive to him! Such were the ills, such thedisasters, which fell out when the government was "ordered1 Eneid, vi. 820, etc. 2 His nephew.BOOK III. ] DISSENSIONS IN ROME. 113with justice and moderation." Lucretius, too, who succeededBrutus, was carried off by disease before the end of that sameyear. So P. Valerius, who succeeded Collatinus, and M. Horatius, who filled the vacancy occasioned by the death of Lucretius, completed that disastrous and funereal year, which hadfive consuls. Such was the year in which the Roman republicinaugurated the new honour and office of the consulship.17. Ofthe disasters which vexed the Roman republic after the inauguration ofthe consulship, and of the non-intervention ofthe gods ofRome.After this, when their fears were gradually diminished, --not because the wars ceased, but because they were not sofurious, that period in which things were " ordered withjustice and moderation " drew to an end, and there followedthat state of matters which Sallust thus briefly sketches:" Then began the patricians to oppress the people as slaves,to condemn them to death or scourging, as the kings haddone, to drive them from their holdings, and to tyrannize overthose who had no property to lose. The people, overwhelmedby these oppressive measures, and most of all by usury, andobliged to contribute both money and personal service to theconstant wars, at length took arms and seceded to MountAventine and Mount Sacer, and thus secured for themselvestribunes and protective laws. But it was only the secondPunic war that put an end on both sides to discord andstrife." 1 But why should I spend time in writing suchthings, or make others spend it in reading them? Let theterse summary of Sallust suffice to intimate the misery of therepublic through all that long period till the second Punic.war, how it was distracted from without by unceasing wars,and torn with civil broils and dissensions. So that thosevictories they boast were not the substantial joys of thehappy, but the empty comforts of wretched men, and seductive incitements to turbulent men to concoct disasters upondisasters. And let not the good and prudent Romans beangry at our saying this; and indeed we need neither deprecate nor denounce their anger, for we know they will harbournone. For we speak no more severely than their own authors,and much less elaborately and strikingly; yet they diligentlyVOL. L¹ Hist. i.H114 •[ROOK III. THE CITY OF GOD.read these authors, and compel their children to learn them.But they who are angry, what would they do to me were Ito say what Sallust says? " Frequent mobs, seditions, and atlast civil wars, became common, while a few leading men onwhom the masses were dependent, affected supreme powerunder the seemly pretence of seeking the good of senate andpeople; citizens were judged good or bad, without referenceto their loyalty to the republic (for all were equally corrupt);but the wealthy and dangerously powerful were esteemed goodcitizens, because they maintained the existing state of things."Now, if those historians judged that an honourable freedom ofspeech required that they should not be silent regarding theblemishes of their own state, which they have in many placesloudly applauded in their ignorance of that other and true cityin which citizenship is an everlasting dignity; what does itbecome us to do, whose liberty ought to be so much greater,as our hope in God is better and more assured, when theyimpute to our Christ the calamities of this age, in order thatmen of the less instructed and weaker sort may be alienatedfrom that city in which alone eternal and blessed life canbe enjoyed? Nor do we utter against their gods anythingmore horrible than their own authors do, whom they read andcirculate. For, indeed, all that we have said we have derivedfrom them, and there is much more to say of a worse kindwhich we are unable to say.Where, then, were those gods who are supposed to be justlyworshipped for the slender and delusive prosperity of thisworld, when the Romans, who were seduced to their serviceby lying wiles, were harassed by such calamities? Wherewere they when Valerius the consul was killed while defending the Capitol, that had been fired by exiles and slaves? Hewas himself better able to defend the temple of Jupiter, thanthat crowd of divinities with their most high and mighty king,whose temple he came to the rescue of, were able to defendhim. Where were they when the city, worn out with unceasing seditions, was waiting in some kind of calm for the return.of the ambassadors who had been sent to Athens to borrowlaws, and was desolated by dreadful famine and pestilence?Where were they when the people, again distressed withBOOK III. ] ROME NOT DEFENDED BY THE GODS. 115famine, created for the first time a prefect of the market; andwhen Spurius Melius, who, as the famine increased, distributedcorn to the famishing masses, was accused of aspiring to royalty,and at the instance of this same prefect, and on the authorityof the superannuated dictator L. Quintius, was put to death byQuintus Servilius, master of the horse, an event which occasioned a serious and dangerous riot? Where were they whenthat very severe pestilence visited Rome, on account of whichthe people, after long and wearisome and useless supplicationsof the helpless gods, conceived the idea of celebrating Lectisternia, which had never been done before; that is to say,they set couches in honour of the gods, which accounts forthe name of this sacred rite, or rather sacrilege? ¹ Wherewere they when, during ten successive years of reverses, theRoman army suffered frequent and great losses among theVeians, and would have been destroyed but for the succourof Furius Camillus, who was afterwards banished by an ungrateful country? Where were they when the Gauls took,sacked, burned, and desolated Rome? Where were they whenthat memorable pestilence wrought such destruction, in whichFurius Camillus too perished, who first defended the ungrateful republic from the Veians, and afterwards saved it from theGauls? Nay, during this plague they introduced a new pestilence of scenic entertainments, which spread its more fatalcontagion, not to the bodies, but the morals of the Romans?Where were they when another frightful pestilence visited thecity-I mean the poisonings imputed to an incredible numberof noble Roman matrons, whose characters were infected witha disease more fatal than any plague? Or when both consuls at the head of the army were beset by the Samnites inthe Caudine Forks, and forced to strike a shameful treaty,600 Roman knights being kept as hostages; while the troops,having laid down their arms, and being stripped of everything,were made to pass under the yoke with one garment each?Or when, in the midst of a serious pestilence, lightning struckthe Roman camp and killed many? Or when Rome wasdriven, by the violence of another intolerable plague, to sendto Epidaurus for Esculapius as a god of medicine; since the' Lectisternia, from lectus, a couch, and sterno, I spread.116 [ BOOK III.THE CITY OF GOD.frequent adulteries of Jupiter in his youth had not perhapsleft this king of all who so long reigned in the Capitol, anyleisure for the study of medicine? Or when, at one time,the Lucanians, Brutians, Samnites, Tuscans, and SenonianGauls conspired against Rome, and first slew her ambassadors,then overthrew an army under the prætor, putting to the sword13,000 men, besides the commander and seven tribunes? Orwhen the people, after the serious and long-continued disturbances at Rome, at last plundered the city and withdrewto Janiculus; a danger so grave, that Hortensius was createddictator,—an office which they had recourse to only in extremeemergencies; and he, having brought back the people, diedwhile yet he retained his office, an event without precedentin the case of any dictator, and which was a shame to thosegods who had now Esculapius among them?At that time, indeed, so many wars were everywhere engaged in, that through scarcity of soldiers they enrolled formilitary service the proletarii, who received this name, because, being too poor to equip for military service, they hadleisure to beget offspring.¹ Pyrrhus, king of Greece, and atthat time of wide-spread renown, was invited by the Tarentinesto enlist himself against Rome. It was to him that Apollo,when consulted regarding the issue of his enterprise, utteredwith some pleasantry so ambiguous an oracle, that whichever alternative happened, the god himself should be counteddivine. For he so worded the oracle," that whether Pyrrhuswas conquered by the Romans, or the Romans by Pyrrhus,the soothsaying god would securely await the issue. Andthen what frightful massacres of both armies ensued! YetPyrrhus remained conqueror, and would have been able nowto proclaim Apollo a true diviner, as he understood the oracle,had not the Romans been the conquerors in the next engagement. And while such disastrous wars were being waged, aterrible disease broke out among the women. For the pregnantwomen died before delivery. And Esculapius, I fancy, excusedhimself in this matter on the ground that he professed to bearch-physician, not midwife. Cattle, too, similarly perished;1 Proletarius, from proles, offspring.</p><ul><li> The oracle ran: " Dico te, Pyrrhe, vincere posse Romanos. "</li></ul><p>BOOK III. ] ROME NOT PRESERVED FROM PESTILENCE. 117so that it was believed that the whole race of animals wasdestined to become extinct. Then what shall I say of that.memorable winter in which the weather was so incrediblysevere, that in the Forum frightfully deep snow lay for fortydays together, and the Tiber was frozen? Had such thingshappened in our time, what accusations we should have heardfrom our enemies! And that other great pestilence, whichraged so long and carried off so many; what shall I say ofit? Spite of all the drugs of Esculapius, it only grew worsein its second year, till at last recourse was had to the Sibylline books, a kind of oracle which, as Cicero says in his DeDivinatione, owes significance to its interpreters, who makedoubtful conjectures as they can or as they wish. In thisinstance, the cause of the plague was said to be that so manytemples had been used as private residences. And thusEsculapius for the present escaped the charge of either ignominious negligence or want of skill. But why were so manyallowed to occupy sacred tenements without interference, unless because supplication had long been addressed in vain tosuch a crowd of gods, and so by degrees the sacred places weredeserted of worshippers, and being thus vacant, could withoutoffence be put at least to some human uses? And the temples,which were at that time laboriously recognised and restoredthat the plague might be stayed, fell afterwards into disuse,and were again devoted to the same human uses. Had theynot thus lapsed into obscurity, it could not have been pointedto as proof of Varro's great erudition, that in his work onsacred places he cites so many that were unknown. Meanwhile, the restoration of the temples procured no cure of theplague, but only a fine excuse for the gods.18. The disasters suffered by the Romans in the Punic wars, which were notmitigated bythe protection ofthe gods.In the Punic wars, again, when victory hung so long inthe balance between the two kingdoms, when two powerfulnations were straining every nerve and using all their resources against one another, how many smaller kingdomswere crushed, how many large and flourishing cities were demolished, how many states were overwhelmed and ruined, howmany districts and lands far and near were desolated! How118 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK III..What often were the victors on either side vanquished!multitudes of men, both of those actually in arms andof others, were destroyed! What huge navies, too, werecrippled in engagements, or were sunk by every kind ofmarine disaster! Were we to attempt to recount or mentionthese calamities, we should become writers of history. Atthat period Rome was mightily perturbed, and resorted tovain and ludicrous expedients. On the authority of theSibylline books, the secular games were re-appointed, whichhad been inaugurated a century before, but had faded intooblivion in happier times. The games consecrated to the infernal gods were also renewed by the pontiffs; for they, too,had sunk into disuse in the better times. And no wonder;for when they were renewed, the great abundance of dyingmen made all hell rejoice at its riches, and give itself up tosport for certainly the ferocious wars, and disastrous quarrels,and bloody victories-now on one side, and now on the other-though most calamitous to men, afforded great sport anda rich banquet to the devils. But in the first Punic warthere was no more disastrous event than the Roman defeat inwhich Regulus was taken. We made mention of him in thetwo former books as an incontestably great man, who hadbefore conquered and subdued the Carthaginians, and whowould have put an end to the first Punic war, had not aninordinate appetite for praise and glory prompted him to impose on the worn-out Carthaginians harder conditions thanthey could bear. If the unlooked-for captivity and unseemlybondage of this man, his fidelity to his oath, and his surpassingly cruel death, do not bring a blush to the face of the gods,it is true that they are brazen and bloodless.Nor were there wanting at that time very heavy disasterswithin the city itself. For the Tiber was extraordinarilyflooded, and destroyed almost all the lower parts of the city;some buildings being carried away by the violence of thetorrent, while others were soaked to rottenness by the waterthat stood round them even after the flood was gone. Thisvisitation was followed by a fire which was still more destructive, for it consumed some of the loftier buildings roundthe Forum, and spared not even its own proper temple, that ofсоок пі. ]ROME RAVAGED BY FIRE. 119Vesta, in which virgins chosen for this honour, or rather forthis punishment, had been employed in conferring, as it were,everlasting life on fire, by ceaselessly feeding it with freshfuel. But at the time we speak of, the fire in the temple wasnot content with being kept alive: it raged. And when thevirgins, scared by its vehemence, were unable to save thosefatal images which had already brought destruction on threecities in which they had been received, Metellus the priest,forgetful of his own safety, rushed in and rescued the sacredthings, though he was half roasted in doing so. For eitherthe fire did not recognise even him, or else the goddess of firewas there, a goddess who would not have fled from the firesupposing she had been there. But here you see how a mancould be of greater service to Vesta than she could be to him.Now if these gods could not avert the fire from themselves,what help against flames or flood could they bring to the stateof which they were the reputed guardians? Facts have shownthat they were useless. These objections of ours would beidle if our adversaries maintained that their idols are consecrated rather as symbols of things eternal, than to secure theblessings of time; and that thus, though the symbols, like allmaterial and visible things, might perish, no damage therebyresulted to the things for the sake of which they had beenconsecrated, while, as for the images themselves, they could berenewed again for the same purposes they had formerly served.But with lamentable blindness, they suppose that, through theintervention of perishable gods, the earthly well-being and temporal prosperity of the state can be preserved from perishing.And so, when they are reminded that even when the gods remained amongthem this well-being and prosperity were blighted,they blush to change the opinion they are unable to defend.19. Ofthe calamity of the second Punic war, which consumed the strengthofboth parties.As to the second Punic war, it were tedious to recount thedisasters it brought on both the nations engaged in so protracted and shifting a war, that (by the acknowledgment evenof those writers who have made it their object not so much tonarrate the wars as to eulogize the dominion of Rome) the1 Troy, Lavinia, Alba.120 [BOOK III. THE CITY OF GOD.people who remained victorious were less like conquerors thanconquered. For, when Hannibal poured out of Spain over thePyrenees, and overran Gaul, and burst through the Alps, andduring his whole course gathered strength by plundering andsubduing as he went, and inundated Italy like a torrent, howbloody were the wars, and how continuous the engagements,that were fought! How often were the Romans vanquished!How many towns went over to the enemy, and how manywere taken and subdued! What fearful battles there were,and how often did the defeat of the Romans shed lustre on thearms of Hannibal! And what shall I say of the wonderfullycrushing defeat at Canna, where even Hannibal, cruel as hewas, was yet sated with the blood of his bitterest enemies, andgave orders that they be spared? From this field of battle hesent to Carthage three bushels of gold rings, signifying that somuch of the rank of Rome had that day fallen, that it waseasier to give an idea of it by measure than by numbers; andthat the frightful slaughter of the common rank and file whosebodies lay undistinguished by the ring, and who were numerous in proportion to their meanness, was rather to be conjectured than accurately reported. In fact, such was the scarcityof soldiers after this, that the Romans impressed their criminalson the promise of impunity, and their slaves by the bribe ofliberty, and out of these infamous classes did not so muchrecruit as create an army. But these slaves, or, to give themall their titles, these freedmen who were enlisted to do battlefor the republic of Rome, lacked arms. And so they tookarms from the temples, as if the Romans were saying to theirgods: Lay down those arms you have held so long in vain, ifby chance our slaves may be able to use to purpose what you,our gods, have been impotent to use. At that time, too, thepublic treasury was too low to pay the soldiers, and privateresources were used for public purposes; and so generouslydid individuals contribute of their property, that, saving thegold ring and bulla which each wore, the pitiful mark of hisrank, no senator, and much less any of the other orders andtribes, reserved any gold for his own use. But if in our daythey were reduced to this poverty, who would be able toendure their reproaches, barely endurable as they are now,BOOK III. ]DESTRUCTION OF ROME'S ALLIES. 121when more money is spent on actors for the sake of a superfluous gratification, than was then disbursed to the legions?20. Ofthe destruction ofthe Saguntines, who received no help from the Romangods, though perishing on account oftheir fidelity to Rome.But among all the disasters of the second Punic war, thereoccurred none more lamentable, or calculated to excite deepercomplaint, than the fate of the Saguntines. This city of Spain,eminently friendly to Rome, was destroyed by its fidelity tothe Roman people. For when Hannibal had broken treaty withthe Romans, he sought occasion for provoking them to war,and accordingly made a fierce assault upon Saguntum. Whenthis was reported at Rome, ambassadors were sent to Hannibal,urging him to raise the siege; and when this remonstrance wasneglected, they proceeded to Carthage, lodged complaint againstthe breaking of the treaty, and returned to Rome without accomplishing their object. Meanwhile the siege went on; andin the eighth or ninth month, this opulent butill-fated city,dear as it was to its own state and to Rome, was taken, andsubjected to treatment which one cannot read, much less narrate, without horror. And yet, because it bears directly onthe matter in hand, I will briefly touch upon it. First, then,famine wasted the Saguntines, so that even human corpseswere eaten by some: so at least it is recorded. Subsequently,when thoroughly worn out, that they might at least escape theignominy of falling into the hands of Hannibal, they publiclyerected a huge funeral pile, and cast themselves into its flames,while at the same time they slew their children and themselves with the sword. Could these gods, these debauchees andgourmands, whose mouths water for fat sacrifices, and whoselips utter lying divinations, —could they not do anything in acase like this? Could they not interfere for the preservation ofa city closely allied to the Roman people, or prevent it perishing for its fidelity to that alliance of which they themselveshad been the mediators? Saguntum, faithfully keeping thetreaty it had entered into before these gods, and to which ithad firmly bound itself by an oath, was besieged, taken, anddestroyed by a perjured person. If afterwards, when Hannibalwas close to the walls of Rome, it was the gods who terrifiedhim with lightning and tempest, and drove him to a distance,122 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK III. .why, I ask, did they not thus interfere before? For I makebold to say, that this demonstration with the tempest wouldhave been more honourably made in defence of the allies ofRome-who were in danger on account of their reluctance tobreak faith with the Romans, and had no resources of theirown-than in defence of the Romans themselves, who werefighting in their own cause, and had abundant resources tooppose Hannibal. If, then, they had been the guardians ofRoman prosperity and glory, they would have preserved thatglory from the stain of this Saguntine disaster; and how sillyit is to believe that Rome was preserved from destruction atthe hands of Hannibal by the guardian care of those gods whowere unable to rescue the city of Saguntum from perishingthrough its fidelity to the alliance of Rome. If the population of Saguntum had been Christian, and had suffered as itdid for the Christian faith (though, of course, Christians wouldnot have used fire and sword against their own persons), theywould have suffered with that hope which springs from faithin Christ-the hope not of a brief temporal reward, but of unending and eternal bliss. What, then, will the advocates andapologists of these gods say in their defence, when chargedwith the blood of these Saguntines; for they are professedlyworshipped and invoked for this very purpose of securing prosperity in this fleeting and transitory life? Can anything besaid but what was alleged in the case of Regulus' death? Forthough there is a difference between the two cases, the onebeing an individual, the other a whole community, yet thecause of destruction was in both cases the keeping of theirplighted troth. For it was this which made Regulus willingto return to his enemies, and this which made the Saguntinesunwilling to revolt to their enemies. Does, then, the keepingof faith provoke the gods to anger? Or is it possible that notonly individuals, but even entire communities, perish whilethe gods are propitious to them? Let our adversaries choosewhich alternative they will. If, on the one hand, those godsare enraged at the keeping of faith, let them enlist perjuredpersons as their worshippers. If, on the other hand, men andstates can suffer great and terrible calamities, and at last perishwhile favoured by the gods, then does their worship not pro-BOOK III. ] ROME'S BEST CITIZENS UNREWARDED. 123duce happiness as its fruit. Let those, therefore, who supposethat they have fallen into distress because their religious worship has been abolished, lay aside their anger; for it were quitepossible that did the gods not only remain with them, but regard them with favour, they might yet be left to mourn anunhappy lot, or might, even like Regulus and the Saguntines,be horribly tormented, and at last perish miserably.21. Ofthe ingratitude ofRome to Scipio, its deliverer, and ofits mannersduring the period which Sallust describes as the best.Omitting many things, that I may not exceed the limitsof the work I have proposed to myself, I come to the epochbetween the second and last Punic wars, during which, according to Sallust, the Romans lived with the greatest virtue andconcord. Now, in this period of virtue and harmony, thegreat Scipio, the liberator of Rome and Italy, who had withsurprising ability brought to a close the second Punic warthat horrible, destructive, dangerous contest-who had defeatedHannibal and subdued Carthage, and whose whole life is saidto have been dedicated to the gods, and cherished in theirtemples , this Scipio, after such a triumph, was obliged toyield to the accusations of his enemies, and to leave hiscountry, which his valour had saved and liberated , to spendthe remainder of his days in the town of Liternum, soindifferent to a recall from exile, that he is said to havegiven orders that not even his remains should lie in hisungrateful country. It was at that time also that the proconsul Cn. Manlius, after subduing the Galatians, introducedinto Rome the luxury of Asia, more destructive than allhostile armies. It was then that iron bedsteads and expensive carpets were first used; then, too, that female singerswere admitted at banquets, and other licentious abominationswere introduced. But at present I meant to speak, not of theevils men voluntarily practise, but of those they suffer in spiteof themselves. So that the case of Scipio, who succumbed tohis enemies, and died in exile from the country he had rescued,was mentioned by me as being pertinent to the present discussion; for this was the reward he received from thoseRoman gods whose temples he saved from Hannibal, andwho are worshipped only for the sake of securing temporal124 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK III. .happiness. But since Sallust, as we have seen, declares thatthe manners of Rome were never better than at that time, Itherefore judged it right to mention the Asiatic luxury thenintroduced, that it might be seen that what he says is true, onlywhen that period is compared with the others, during whichthe morals were certainly worse, and the factions more violent.For at that time—I mean between the second and third Punicwar-that notorious Lex Voconia was passed, which prohibiteda man from making a woman, even an only daughter, his heir;than which law I am at a loss to conceive what could bemore unjust. It is true that in the interval between thesetwo Punic wars the misery of Rome was somewhat less.Abroad, indeed, their forces were consumed by wars, yet alsoconsoled by victories; while at home there were not suchdisturbances as at other times. But when the last Punic warhad terminated in the utter destruction of Rome's rival, whichquickly succumbed to the other Scipio, who thus earned forhimself the surname of Africanus, then the Roman republic wasoverwhelmed with such a host of ills, which sprang from thecorrupt manners induced by prosperity and security, that thesudden overthrow of Carthage is seen to have injured Romemore seriously than her long- continued hostility. During thewhole subsequent period down to the time of Cæsar Augustus,who seems to have entirely deprived the Romans of liberty,—a liberty, indeed, which in their own judgment was no longerglorious, but full of broils and dangers, and which now wasquite enervated and languishing,—and who submitted all thingsagain to the will of a monarch, and infused as it were a newlife into the sickly old age of the republic, and inaugurated afresh régime;-during this whole period, I say, many militarydisasters were sustained on a variety of occasions, all of whichI here pass by. There was specially the treaty of Numantia,blotted as it was with extreme disgrace; for the sacredchickens, they say, flew out of the coop, and thus augureddisaster to Mancinus the consul; just as if, during all theseyears in which that little city of Numantia had withstood thebesieging army of Rome, and had become a terror to therepublic, the other generals had all marched against it underunfavourable auspices.BOOK III. ] MASSACRE OF ROMAN CITIZENS. 12522. Ofthe edict ofMithridates, commanding that all Roman citizensfound in Asia should be slain.These things, I say, I pass in silence; but I can by nomeans be silent regarding the order given by Mithridates,king of Asia, that on one day all Roman citizens residinganywhere in Asia (where great numbers of them were following their private business) should be put to death: and thisorder was executed. How miserable a spectacle was thenpresented, when each man was suddenly and treacherouslymurdered wherever he happened to be, in the field or on theroad, in the town, in his own home, or in the street, in marketor temple, in bed or at table! Think of the groans of thedying, the tears of the spectators, and even of the executionersthemselves. For how cruel a necessity was it that compelledthe hosts of these victims, not only to see these abominablebutcheries in their own houses, but even to perpetrate them:to change their countenance suddenly from the bland kindliness of friendship, and in the midst of peace set about thebusiness of war; and, shall I say, give and receive wounds,the slain being pierced in body, the slayer in spirit! Hadall these murdered persons, then, despised auguries? Hadthey neither public nor household gods to consult when theyleft their homes and set out on that fatal journey? If theyhad not, our adversaries have no reason to complain of theseChristian times in this particular, since long ago the Romansdespised auguries as idle. If, on the other hand, they didconsult omens, let them tell us what good they got thereby,even when such things were not prohibited, but authorized,by human, if not by divine law.23. Ofthe internal disasters which vexed the Roman republic, and followed aportentous madness which seized all the domestic animals.But let us now mention, as succinctly as possible, thosedisasters which were still more vexing, because nearer home;I mean those discords which are erroneously called civil, sincethey destroy civil interests. The seditions had now becomeurban wars, in which blood was freely shed, and in which parties raged against one another, not with wrangling and verbalcontention, but with physical force and arms. What a sea ofRoman blood was shed, what desolations and devastations were126 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK III..occasioned in Italy by wars social, wars servile, wars civil!Before the Latins began the social war against Rome, all theanimals used in the service of man-dogs, horses, asses, oxen,and all the rest that are subject to man-suddenly grew wild,and forgot their domesticated tameness, forsook their stallsand wandered at large, and could not be closely approachedeither by strangers or their own masters without danger. Ifthis was a portent, how serious a calamity must have beenportended by a plague which, whether portent or no, was initself a serious calamity! Had it happened in our day, theheathen would have been more rabid against us than theiranimals were against them.24. Ofthe civil dissension occasioned by the sedition ofthe Gracchi.The civil wars originated in the seditions which theGracchi excited regarding the agrarian laws; for they wereminded to divide among the people the lands which werewrongfully possessed by the nobility. But to reform anabuse of so long standing was an enterprise full of peril, orrather, as the event proved, of destruction. For what disastersaccompanied the death of the elder Gracchus! what slaughterensued when, shortly after, the younger brother met the samefate! For noble and ignoble were indiscriminately massacred;and this not by legal authority and procedure, but by mobsand armed rioters. After the death of the younger Gracchus,the consul Lucius Opimius, who had given battle to himwithin the city, and had defeated and put to the sword bothhimself and his confederates, and had massacred many of thecitizens, instituted a judicial examination of others, and isreported to have put to death as many as 3000 men. Fromthis it may be gathered how many fell in the riotous encounters, when the result even of a judicial investigation wasso bloody. The assassin of Gracchus himself sold his headto the consul for its weight in gold, such being the previousagreement. In this massacre, too, Marcus Fulvius, a man ofconsular rank, with all his children, was put to death.25. Ofthe temple of Concord, which was erected by a decree of the senate on thescene ofthese seditions and massacres.A pretty decree of the senate it was, truly, by which thetemple of Concord was built on the spot where that disastrousBOOK III. ] TEMPLE OF CONCORD. 127rising had taken place, and where so many citizens of everyrank had fallen.¹ I suppose it was that the monument of theGracchi's punishment might strike the eye and affect thememory of the pleaders. But what was this but to deridethe gods, by building a temple to that goddess who, had shebeen in the city, would not have suffered herself to be tornby such dissensions? Or was it that Concord was chargeablewith that bloodshed because she had deserted the minds ofthe citizens, and was therefore incarcerated in that temple?For if they had any regard to consistency, why did they notrather erect on that site a temple of Discord? Or is therea reason for Concord being a goddess while Discord is none?Does the distinction of Labeo hold here, who would havemade the one a good, the other an evil deity?—a distinctionwhich seems to have been suggested to him by the mere factof his observing at Rome a temple to Fever as well as one toHealth. But, on the same ground, Discord as well as Concordought to be deified. A hazardous venture the Romans madein provoking so wicked a goddess, and in forgetting that thedestruction of Troy had been occasioned by her taking offence.For, being indignant that she was not invited with the othergods [to the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis], she created dissension among the three goddesses by sending in the goldenapple, which occasioned strife in heaven, victory to Venus,the rape of Helen, and the destruction of Troy. Wherefore,if she was perhaps offended that the Romans had not thoughther worthy of a temple among the other gods in their city,and therefore disturbed the state with such tumults, to howmuch fiercer passion would she be roused when she saw thetemple of her adversary erected on the scene of that massacre,or, in other words, on the scene of her own handiwork! Thosewise and learned men are enraged at our laughing at thesefollies; and yet, being worshippers of good and bad divinitiesalike, they cannot escape this dilemma about Concord andDiscord: either they have neglected the worship of thesegoddesses, and preferred Fever and War, to whom there areshrines erected of great antiquity, or they have worshipped.1 Under the inscription on the temple some person wrote the line, " Vecordiæopus ædem facit Concordia "-The work of discord makes the temple of Concord.128 [ BOOK III. THE CITY OF GOD.them, and after all Concord has abandoned them, and Discordhas tempestuously hurled them into civil wars.26. Ofthe various kinds ofwars whichfollowed the building ofthe temple ofConcord.But they supposed that, in erecting the temple of Concordwithin the view of the orators, as a memorial of the punishment and death of the Gracchi, they were raising an effectualobstacle to sedition. How much effect it had, is indicated bythe still more deplorable wars that followed. For after thisthe orators endeavoured not to avoid the example of theGracchi, but to surpass their projects; as did Lucius Saturninus, a tribune of the people, and Caius Servilius the prætor,and some time after Marcus Drusus, all of whom stirred seditions which first of all occasioned bloodshed, and then thesocial wars by which Italy was grievously injured, and reducedto a piteously desolate and wasted condition. Then followed theservile war and the civil wars; and in them what battles werefought, and what blood was shed, so that almost all the peoplesof Italy, which formed the main strength of the Roman empire,were conquered as if they were barbarians! Then even historians themselves find it difficult to explain how the servile warwas begun by a very few, certainly less than seventy gladiators,what numbers of fierce and cruel men attached themselves tothese, how many of the Roman generals this band defeated,and how it laid waste many districts and cities. And thatwas not the only servile war: the province of Macedonia, andsubsequently Sicily and the sea- coast, were also depopulatedby bands of slaves. And who can adequately describe eitherthe horrible atrocities which the pirates first committed, or thewars they afterwards maintained against Rome?27. Ofthe civil war between Marius and Sylla.But when Marius, stained with the blood of his fellowcitizens, whom the rage of party had sacrificed, was in his turnvanquished and driven from the city, it had scarcely time tobreathe freely, when, to use the words of Cicero, " Cinna andMarius together returned and took possession of it. Then,indeed, the foremost men in the state were put to death, itslights quenched. Sylla afterwards avenged this cruel victory;BOOK III. ] ATROCITIES OF MARIUS. 1292but we need not say with what loss of life, and with what ruinto the republic." For of this vengeance, which was moredestructive than if the crimes which it punished had beencommitted with impunity, Lucan says: " The cure was excessive, and too closely resembled the disease. The guiltyperished, but when none but the guilty survived: and thenprivate hatred and anger, unbridled by law, were allowed freeindulgence." In that war between Marius and Sylla, besidesthose who fell in the field of battle, the city, too, was filledwith corpses in its streets, squares, markets, theatres, andtemples; so that it is not easy to reckon whether the victorsslew more before or after victory, that they might be, or because they were, victors. As soon as Marius triumphed, andreturned from exile, besides the butcheries everywhere perpetrated, the head of the consul Octavius was exposed on therostrum; Cæsar and Fimbria were assassinated in their ownhouses; the two Crassi, father and son, were murdered in oneanother's sight; Bebius and Numitorius were disembowelled bybeing dragged with hooks; Catulus escaped the hands of hisenemies by drinking poison; Merula, the flamen of Jupiter,cut his veins and made a libation of his own blood to his god.Moreover, every one whose salutation Marius did not answerby giving his hand, was at once cut down before his face.28. Ofthe victory of Sylla, the avenger ofthe cruelties ofMarius.Then followed the victory of Sylla, the so-called avenger ofthe cruelties of Marius. But not only was his victory purchased with great bloodshed; but when hostilities were finished,hostility survived, and the subsequent peace was bloody as thewar. To the former and still recent massacres of the elderMarius, the younger Marius and Carbo, who belonged to thesame party, added greater atrocities. For when Sylla approached, and they despaired not only of victory, but of lifeitself, they made a promiscuous massacre of friends and foes.And, not satisfied with staining every corner of Rome withblood, they besieged the senate, and led forth the senators todeath from the curia as from a prison. Mucius Scævola thepontiff was slain at the altar of Vesta, which he had clung to1 Cicero, in Catilin. iii. sub. fin. 2 Lucan, Pharsal. ii. 142–146.VOL. I. I130 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK III.because no spot in Rome was more sacred than her temple;and his blood well-nigh extinguished the fire which was keptalive by the constant care of the virgins. Then Sylla enteredthe city victorious, after having slaughtered in the Villa Publica,not by combat, but by an order, 7000 men who had surrendered, and were therefore unarmed; so fierce was the rageof peace itself, even after the rage of war was extinct. Moreover, throughout the whole city every partisan of Sylla slewwhom he pleased, so that the number of deaths went beyondcomputation, till it was suggested to Sylla that he should allowsome to survive, that the victors might not be destitute ofsubjects. Then this furious and promiscuous licence to murderwas checked, and much relief was expressed at the publicationof the proscription list, containing though it did the deathwarrant of two thousand men of the highest ranks, the senatorial and equestrian. The large number was indeed saddening, but it was consolatory that a limit was fixed; nor was thegrief at the numbers slain so great as the joy that the restBut this very security, hard-hearted as it was,could not but bemoan the exquisite torture applied to some ofthose who had been doomed to die. For one was torn topieces by the unarmed hands of the executioners; men treating a living man more savagely than wild beasts are used totear an abandoned corpse. Another had his eyes dug out, andhis limbs cut away bit by bit, and was forced to live a longwhile, or rather to die a long while, in such torture. Somecelebrated cities were put up to auction, like farms; and onewas collectively condemned to slaughter, just as an individualcriminal would be condemned to death. These things weredone in peace when the war was over, not that victory mightbe more speedily obtained, but that, after being obtained, itmight not be thought lightly of. Peace vied with war incruelty, and surpassed it: for while war overthrew armedhosts, peace slew the defenceless. War gave liberty to himwho was attacked, to strike if he could; peace granted to thesurvivors not life, but an unresisting death.were secure.29. A comparison of the disasters which Rome experienced during the Gothicand Gallic invasions, with those occasioned by the authors of the civil wars.What fury of foreign nations, what barbarian ferocity, canBOOK III. ]CRUELTIES OF SYLLA. 131compare with this victory of citizens over citizens? Whichwas more disastrous, more hideous, more bitter to Rome: therecent Gothic and the old Gallic invasion, or the cruelty displayed by Marius and Sylla and their partisans against menwho were members of the same body as themselves? TheGauls, indeed, massacred all the senators they found in any partof the city except the Capitol, which alone was defended; butthey at least sold life to those who were in the Capitol, thoughthey might have starved them out if they could not havestormed it. The Goths, again, spared so many senators, thatit is the more surprising that they killed any. But Sylla,while Marius was still living, established himself as conquerorin the Capitol, which the Gauls had not violated, and thenceissued his death-warrants; and when Marius had escaped byflight, though destined to return more fierce and bloodthirstythan ever, Sylla issued from the Capitol even decrees of thesenate for the slaughter and confiscation of the property ofmany citizens. Then, when Sylla left, what did the Marianfaction hold sacred or spare, when they gave no quarter evento Mucius, a citizen, a senator, a pontiff, and though claspingin piteous embrace the very altar in which, they say, residethe destinies of Rome? And that final proscription list ofSylla's, not to mention countless other massacres, despatchedmore senators than the Goths could even plunder.30. Ofthe connection of the wars which with great severity andfrequencyfollowed one another before the advent of Christ.With what effrontery, then, with what assurance, with whatimpudence, with what folly, or rather insanity, do they refuseto impute these disasters to their own gods, and impute thepresent to our Christ! These bloody civil wars, more distressing,by the avowal of their own historians, than any foreign wars,and which were pronounced to be not merely calamitous, butabsolutely ruinous to the republic, began long before the comingof Christ, and gave birth to one another; so that a concatenation of unjustifiable causes led from the wars of Marius andSylla to those of Sertorius and Catiline, of whom the one wasproscribed, the other brought up by Sylla; from this to thewar of Lepidus and Catulus, of whom the one wished to rescind,the other to defend the acts of Sylla; from this to the war of132 [BOOK III.THE CITY OF GOD.Pompey and Cæsar, of whom Pompey had been a partisan ofSylla, whose power he equalled or even surpassed, while Cæsarcondemned Pompey's power because it was not his own, andyet exceeded it when Pompey was defeated and slain. Fromhim the chain of civil wars extended to the second Cæsar,afterwards called Augustus, and in whose reign Christ wasborn. For even Augustus himself waged many civil wars;and in these wars many of the foremost men perished, amongthem that skilful manipulator of the republic, Cicero. Caius[Julius] Cæsar, when he had conquered Pompey, though heused his victory with clemency, and granted to men of the opposite faction both life and honours, was suspected of aimingat royalty, and was assassinated in the curia by a party ofnoble senators, who had conspired to defend the liberty of therepublic. His power was then coveted by Antony, a man ofvery different character, polluted and debased by every kind ofvice, who was strenuously resisted by Cicero on the same pleaof defending the liberty of the republic. At this juncture thatother Cæsar, the adopted son of Caius, and afterwards, as Isaid, known by the name of Augustus, had made his début asa young man of remarkable genius. This youthful Cæsar wasfavoured by Cicero, in order that his influence might counteractthat of Antony; for he hoped that Cæsar would overthrow andblast the power of Antony, and establish a free state, so blindand unaware of the future was he: for that very young man,whose advancement and influence he was fostering, allowedCicero to be killed as the seal of an alliance with Antony, andsubjected to his own rule the very liberty of the republic indefence of which he had made so many orations.31. That it is effrontery to impute the present troubles to Christ and the prohibition of polytheistic worship, since even when the gods were worshippedsuch calamities befell the people.Let those who have no gratitude to Christ for His greatbenefits, blame their own gods for these heavy disasters. Forcertainly when these occurred the altars of the gods were keptblazing, and there rose the mingled fragrance of " Sabæanincense and fresh garlands; " the priests were clothed withhonour, the shrines were maintained in splendour; sacrifices,1 Virgil, Æneid, i. 417.BOOK III. ] CHRISTIANITY UNJUSTLY ACCUSED. 133games, sacred ecstasies, were common in the temples; while theblood of the citizens was being so freely shed, not only inremote places, but among the very altars of the gods. Cicerodid not choose to seek sanctuary in a temple, because Muciushad sought it there in vain. But they who most unpardonably calumniate this Christian era, are the very men whoeither themselves fled for asylum to the places specially dedicated to Christ, or were led there by the barbarians that theymight be safe. In short, not to recapitulate the manyinstances I have cited, and not to add to their number otherswhich it were tedious to enumerate, this one thing I am persuaded of, and this every impartial judgment will readilyacknowledge, that if the human race had received Christianitybefore the Punic wars, and if the same desolating calamitieswhich these wars brought upon Europe and Africa had followed the introduction of Christianity, there is no one of thosewho now accuse us who would not have attributed them toour religion. How intolerable would their accusations havebeen, at least so far as the Romans are concerned, if theChristian religion had been received and diffused prior to theinvasion of the Gauls, or to the ruinous floods and fires whichdesolated Rome, or to those most calamitous of all events, thecivil wars! And those other disasters, which were of so strangea nature that they were reckoned prodigies, had they happenedsince the Christian era, to whom but to the Christians wouldthey have imputed these as crimes? I do not speak of thosethings which were rather surprising than hurtful, ―oxen speaking, unborn infants articulating some words in their mothers'wombs, serpents flying, hens and women being changed intothe other sex; and other similar prodigies which, whether trueor false, are recorded not in their imaginative, but in their historical works, and which do not injure, but only astonish men.But when it rained earth, when it rained chalk, when it rainedstones-not hailstones, but real stones-this certainly wascalculated to do serious damage. We have read in their booksthat the fires of Etna, pouring down from the top of the mountain to the neighbouring shore, caused the sea to boil, so thatrocks were burnt up, and the pitch of ships began to run,—aphenomenon incredibly surprising, but at the same time no134 [BOOK III.THE CITY OF GOD.less hurtful. By the same violent heat, they relate that onanother occasion Sicily was filled with cinders, so that thehouses of the city Catina were destroyed and buried underthem, a calamity which moved the Romans to pity them, andremit their tribute for that year. One may also read thatAfrica, which had by that time become a province of Rome,was visited by a prodigious multitude of locusts, which, afterconsuming the fruit and foliage of the trees, were driven intothe sea in one vast and measureless cloud; so that when theywere drowned and cast upon the shore the air was polluted,and so serious a pestilence produced that in the kingdom ofMasinissa alone they say there perished 800,000 persons,besides a much greater number in the neighbouring districts.At Utica they assure us that, of 30,000 soldiers then garrisoning it, there survived only ten. Yet which of these disasters ,suppose they happened now, would not be attributed to theChristian religion by those who thus thoughtlessly accuse us,and whom we are compelled to answer? And yet to theirown gods they attribute none of these things, though theyworship them for the sake of escaping lesser calamities of thesame kind, and do not reflect that they who formerly worshipped them were not preserved from these serious disasters.BOOK IV. ] RECAPITULATION. 135BOOK FOURTH¹ARGUMENT.IN THIS BOOK IT IS PROVED THAT THE EXTENT AND LONG DURATION OF THEROMAN EMPIRE IS TO BE ASCRIBED, NOT TO JOVE OR THE GODS OF THEHEATHEN, TO WHOM INDIVIDUALLY SCARCE EVEN SINGLE THINGS ANDTHE VERY BASEST FUNCTIONS WERE BELIEVED TO BE ENTRUSTED, BUT TOTHE ONE TRUE GOD, THE AUTHOR OF FELICITY, BY WHOSE POWER ANDJUDGMENT EARTHLY KINGDOMS ARE FOUNDED AND MAINTAINED.H1. Ofthe things which have been discussed in the first book.AVING begun to speak of the city of God, I havethought it necessary first of all to reply to its enemies,who, eagerly pursuing earthly joys, and gaping after transitorythings, throw the blame of all the sorrow they suffer in them—rather through the compassion of God in admonishing,than His severity in punishing -on the Christian religion,which is the one salutary and true religion. And since thereis among them also an unlearned rabble, they are stirred upas by the authority of the learned to hate us more bitterly,thinking in their inexperience that things which have happened unwontedly in their days were not wont to happen inother times gone by; and whereas this opinion of theirs is confirmed even by those who know that it is false, and yet dissemble their knowledge in order that they may seem to havejust cause for murmuring against us, it was necessary, frombooks in which their authors recorded and published the history of bygone times that it might be known, to demonstratethat it is far otherwise than they think; and at the sametime to teach that the false gods, whom they openly worshipped, or still worship in secret, are most unclean spirits,and most malignant and deceitful demons, even to such apitch that they take delight in crimes which, whether real or1 In Augustine's letter to Evodius (169), which was written towards the endof the year 415, he mentions that this fourth book and the following one werebegun and finished during that same year.136 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK IV.only fictitious, are yet their own, which it has been their willto have celebrated in honour of them at their own festivals;so that human infirmity cannot be called back from the perpetration of damnable deeds, so long as authority is furnishedfor imitating them that seems even divine. These things wehave proved, not from our own conjectures, but partly fromrecent memory, because we ourselves have seen such thingscelebrated, and to such deities, partly from the writings ofthose who have left these things on record to posterity, not asif in reproach, but as in honour of their own gods. ThusVarro, a most learned man among them, and of the weightiestauthority, when he made separate books concerning thingshuman and things divine, distributing some among the human,others among the divine, according to the special dignity ofeach, placed the scenic plays not at all among things human,but among things divine; though, certainly, if only therewere good and honest men in the state, the scenic plays oughtnot to be allowed even among things human. And this hedid not on his own authority, but because, being born andeducated at Rome, he found them among the divine things.Now as we briefly stated in the end of the first book whatwe intended afterwards to discuss, and as we have disposedof a part of this in the next two books, we see what ourreaders will expect us now to take up.2. Ofthose things which are contained in Books Second and Third.We had promised, then, that we would say somethingagainst those who attribute the calamities of the Roman republic to our religion, and that we would recount the evils,as many and great as we could remember or might deemsufficient, which that city, or the provinces belonging to itsempire, had suffered before their sacrifices were prohibited,all of which would beyond doubt have been attributed to us,if our religion had either already shone on them, or had thusprohibited their sacrilegious rites. These things we have, aswe think, fully disposed of in the second and third books,treating in the second of evils in morals, which alone orchiefly are to be accounted evils; and in the third, of thosewhich only fools dread to undergo—namely, those of the bodyBOOK IV. ]RECAPITULATION. 137or of outward things-which for the most part the good alsosuffer. But those evils by which they themselves becomeevil, they take, I do not say patiently, but with pleasure. Andhow few evils have I related concerning that one city and itsempire! Not even all down to the time of Cæsar Augustus.What if I had chosen to recount and enlarge on those evils,not which men have inflicted on each other, such as the devastations and destructions of war, but which happen in earthlythings, from the elements of the world itself? Of such evilsApuleius speaks briefly in one passage of that book which hewrote, De Mundo, saying that all earthly things are subject tochange, overthrow, and destruction.¹ For, to use his ownwords, by excessive earthquakes the ground has burst asunder,and cities with their inhabitants have been clean destroyed:by sudden rains whole regions have been washed away; thosealso which formerly had been continents, have been insulatedby strange and new-come waves, and others, by the subsidingof the sea, have been made passable by the foot of man: bywinds and storms cities have been overthrown; fires haveflashed forth from the clouds, by which regions in the Eastbeing burnt up have perished; and on the western coasts thelike destructions have been caused by the bursting forth ofwaters and floods. So, formerly, from the lofty craters of Etna,rivers of fire kindled by God have flowed like a torrent downthe steeps. If I had wished to collect from history whereverI could, these and similar instances, where should I havefinished what happened even in those times before the nameof Christ had put down those of their idols, so vain and hurtful to true salvation? I promised that I should also pointout which of their customs, and for what cause, the true God,in whose power all kingdoms are, had deigned to favour tothe enlargement of their empire; and how those whom theythink gods can have profited them nothing, but much ratherhurt them by deceiving and beguiling them; so that it seemsto me I must now speak of these things, and chiefly of theincrease of the Roman empire. For I have already said nota little, especially in the second book, about the many evilsintroduced into their manners by the hurtful deceits of the1 Comp. Bacon's Essay on the Vicissitudes of Things.138 THE [BOOK IV.CITY OF GOD.demons whom they worshipped as gods. But throughout allthe three books already completed, where it appeared suitable,we have set forth how much succour God, through the nameof Christ, to whom the barbarians beyond the custom of warpaid so much honour, has bestowed on the good and bad,according as it is written, " Who maketh His sun to rise onthe good and the evil, and giveth rain to the just and theunjust."" 13. Whether the great extent of the empire, which has been acquired only by wars,is to be reckoned among the good things either of the wise or the happy.Now, therefore, let us see how it is that they dareto ascribe the very great extent and duration of the Romanempire to those gods whom they contend that they worshiphonourably, even by the obsequies of vile games and theministry of vile men: although I should like first to inquirefor a little what reason, what prudence, there is in wishing to glory in the greatness and extent of the empire, whenyou cannot point out the happiness of men who are alwaysrolling, with dark fear and cruel lust, in warlike slaughtersand in blood, which, whether shed in civil or foreign war, isstill human blood; so that their joy may be compared to glassin its fragile splendour, of which one is horribly afraid lest itshould be suddenly broken in pieces. That this may be moreeasily discerned, let us not come to nought by being carriedaway with empty boasting, or blunt the edge of our attentionby loud- sounding names of things, when we hear of peoples,kingdoms, provinces. But let us suppose a case of two men;for each individual man, like one letter in a language, is as itwere the element of a city or kingdom, however far-spreadingin its occupation of the earth. Of these two men let us suppose that one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; theother very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears,pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, neversecure, always uneasy, panting from the perpetual strife ofhis enemies, adding to his patrimony indeed by these miseriesto an immense degree, and by these additions also heapingup most bitter cares. But that other man of moderate wealthsmall and compact estate, most dear to is contented with a1 Matt. v. 45.BOOK IV. ] WHAT THE HAPPINESS OF DOMINION IS. 139his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindredneighbours and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind,healthy in body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in consciencesecure. I know not whether any one can be such a fool, thathe dare hesitate which to prefer. As, therefore, in the case ofthese two men, so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquillity holds good; and if we applyit vigilantly and without prejudice, we shall quite easily seewhere the mere show of happiness dwells, and where realfelicity. Wherefore if the true God is worshipped, and if Heis served with genuine rites and true virtue, it is advantageousthat good men should long reign both far and wide. Nor isthis advantageous so much to themselves, as to those overwhom they reign. For, so far as concerns themselves, theirpiety and probity, which are great gifts of God, suffice to givethem true felicity, enabling them to live well the life thatnow is, and afterwards to receive that which is eternal. Inthis world, therefore, the dominion of good men is profitable, notso much for themselves as for human affairs. But the dominionof bad men is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule, forthey destroy their own souls by greater licence in wickedness;while those who are put under them in service are not hurtexcept by their own iniquity. For to the just all the evilsimposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishmentof crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man,although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if hereigns, is a slave, and that not of one man, but, what is farmore grievous, of as many masters as he has vices; of whichvices when the divine Scripture treats, it says, " For of whomany man is overcome, to the same he is also the bond-slave. " 14. How like kingdoms without justice are to robberies.Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms butgreat robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but littlekingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruledby the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pactof the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on.If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases¹ 2 Pet. ii. 19.140 THE [ BOOK IV.CITY OF GOD.to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the moreplainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is nowmanifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness,but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an aptand true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by apirate who had been seized. For when that king had askedthe man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of thesea, he answered with bold pride, " What thou meanest byseizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a pettyship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with agreat fleet art styled emperor." 15. Ofthe runaway gladiators whose power became like that of royal dignity.I shall not therefore stay to inquire what sort of menRomulus gathered together, seeing he deliberated much aboutthem,-how, being assumed out of that life they led into thefellowship of his city, they might cease to think of the punishment they deserved, the fear of which had driven them togreater villanies; so that henceforth they might be made morepeaceable members of society. But this I say, that the Romanempire, which by subduing many nations had already growngreat and an object of universal dread, was itself greatlyalarmed, and only with much difficulty avoided a disastrousoverthrow, because a mere handful of gladiators in Campania,escaping from the games, had recruited a great army, appointedthree generals, and most widely and cruelly devastated Italy.Let them say what god aided these men, so that from a smalland contemptible band of robbers they attained to a kingdom,feared even by the Romans, who had such great forces andfortresses. Or will they deny that they were divinely aidedbecause they did not last long? As if, indeed, the life ofany man whatever lasted long. In that case, too, the godsaid no one to reign, since all individuals quickly die; nor issovereign power to be reckoned a benefit, because in a littletime in every man, and thus in all of them one by one, itvanishes like a vapour. For what does it matter to those21 Nonius Marcell. borrows this anecdote from Cicero, De Repub. iii.</p><ul><li> It was extinguished by Crassus in its third year.</li></ul><p>BOOK IV. ]OF NINUS. 141who worshipped the gods under Romulus, and are long sincedead, that after their death the Roman empire has grown sogreat, while they plead their causes before the powers beneath?Whether those causes are good or bad, it matters not to thequestion before us. And this is to be understood of all thosewho carry with them the heavy burden of their actions, havingin the few days of their life swiftly and hurriedly passed overthe stage of the imperial office, although the office itself haslasted through long spaces of time, being filled by a constantsuccession of dying men. If, however, even those benefitswhich last only for the shortest time are to be ascribed to the aidof the gods, these gladiators were not a little aided, who brokethe bonds of their servile condition, fled, escaped, raised agreat and most powerful army, obedient to the will and ordersof their chiefs and much feared by the Roman majesty, andremaining unsubdued by several Roman generals, seized manyplaces, and, having won very many victories, enjoyed whatever pleasures they wished, and did what their lust suggested,and, until at last they were conquered, which was done withthe utmost difficulty, lived sublime and dominant.us come to greater matters.But let6. Concerning the covetousness of Ninus, who was the first who made war on hisneighbours, that he might rule more widely.Justinus, who wrote Greek or rather foreign history inLatin, and briefly, like Trogus Pompeius whom he followed,begins his work thus: " In the beginning of the affairs ofpeoples and nations the government was in the hands of kings,who were raised to the height of this majesty not by courtingthe people, but by the knowledge good men had of their moderation. The people were held bound by no laws; the decisionsof the princes were instead of laws. It was the custom toguard rather than to extend the boundaries of the empire; andkingdoms were kept within the bounds of each ruler's nativeland. Ninus king of the Assyrians first of all, through newlust of empire, changed the old and, as it were, ancestralcustom of nations. He first made war on his neighbours,and wholly subdued as far as to the frontiers of Libya thenations as yet untrained to resist." And a little after he says:"Ninus established by constant possession the greatness of the142 [BOOK IV.THE CITY OF GOD.authority he had gained. Having mastered his nearest neighbours, he went on to others, strengthened by the accession offorces, and by making each fresh victory the instrument ofthat which followed, subdued the nations of the whole East."Now, with whatever fidelity to fact either he or Trogus mayin general have written for that they sometimes told lies isshown by other more trustworthy writers-yet it is agreedamong other authors, that the kingdom of the Assyrians wasextended far and wide by King Ninus. And it lasted so long,that the Roman empire has not yet attained the same age;for, as those write who have treated of chronological history,this kingdom endured for twelve hundred and forty yearsfrom the first year in which Ninus began to reign, until itwas transferred to the Medes. But to make war on yourneighbours, and thence to proceed to others, and through merelust of dominion to crush and subdue people who do you noharm, what else is this to be called than great robbery?7. Whether earthly kingdoms in their rise and fall have been either aided ordeserted by the help ofthe gods.If this kingdom was so great and lasting without the aid ofthe gods, why is the ample territory and long duration of theRoman empire to be ascribed to the Roman gods? For whatever is the cause in it, the same is in the other also. But ifthey contend that the prosperity of the other also is to beattributed to the aid of the gods, I ask of which? For theother nations whom Ninus overcame, did not then worshipother gods. Or if the Assyrians had gods of their own, who,so to speak, were more skilful workmen in the constructionand preservation of the empire, whether are they dead, sincethey themselves have also lost the empire; or, having beendefrauded of their pay, or promised a greater, have they chosenrather to go over to the Medes, and from them again to thePersians, because Cyrus invited them, and promised themsomething still more advantageous? This nation, indeed,since the time of the kingdom of Alexander the Macedonian,which was as brief in duration as it was great in extent, haspreserved its own empire, and at this day occupies no smallterritories in the East. If this is so, then either the gods areunfaithful, who desert their own and go over to their enemies,BOOK IV. ] EMPIRE NOT CONFERRED BY THE GODS. 143which Camillus, who was but a man, did not do, when, beingvictor and subduer of a most hostile state, although he hadfelt that Rome, for whom he had done so much, was ungrateful, yet afterwards, forgetting the injury and remembering hisnative land, he freed her again from the Gauls; or they arenot so strong as gods ought to be, since they can be overcomeby human skill or strength. Or if, when they carry on waramong themselves, the gods are not overcome by men, butsome gods who are peculiar to certain cities are perchanceovercome by other gods, it follows that they have quarrelsamong themselves which they uphold, each for his own part.Therefore a city ought not to worship its own gods, but ratherothers who aid their own worshippers. Finally, whatevermay have been the case as to this change of sides, or flight,or migration, or failure in battle on the part of the gods, thename of Christ had not yet been proclaimed in those partsof the earth when these kingdoms were lost and transferredthrough great destructions in war. For if, after more thantwelve hundred years, whenthe kingdom was taken awayfrom the Assyrians, the Christian religion had there alreadypreached another eternal kingdom, and put a stop to thesacrilegious worship of false gods, what else would the foolishmen of that nation have said, but that the kingdom whichhad been so long preserved, could be lost for no other causethan the desertion of their own religions and the reception ofChristianity? In which foolish speech that might have beenuttered, let those we speak of observe their own likeness, andblush, if there is any sense of shame in them, because theyhave uttered similar complaints; although the Roman empireis afflicted rather than changed, —a thing which has befallenit in other times also, before the name of Christ was heard,and it has been restored after such affliction,—a thing whicheven in these times is not to be despaired of. For who knowsthe will of God concerning this matter?8. Which of the gods can the Romans suppose presided over the increase andpreservation of their empire, when they have believed that even the careofsingle things could scarcely be committed to single gods?Next let us ask, if they please, out of so great a crowd ofgods which the Romans worship, whom in especial, or what144 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK IV. .gods they believe to have extended and preserved that empire.Now, surely of this work, which is so excellent and so veryfull of the highest dignity, they dare not ascribe any part tothe goddess Cloacina; or to Volupia, who has her appellationfrom voluptuousness; or to Libentina, who has her name fromlust; or to Vaticanus, who presides over the screaming ofinfants; or to Cunina, who rules over their cradles. Buthow is it possible to recount in one part of this book all thenames of gods or goddesses, which they could scarcely comprise in great volumes, distributing among these divinitiestheir peculiar offices about single things? They have noteven thought that the charge of their lands should be committed to any one god: but they have entrusted their farmsto Rusina; the ridges of the mountains to Jugatinus; overthe downs they have set the goddess Collatina; over thevalleys, Vallonia. Nor could they even find one Segetia socompetent, that they could commend to her care all their corncrops at once; but so long as their seed-corn was still underthe ground, they would have the goddess Seia set over it;then, whenever it was above ground and formed straw, theyset over it the goddess Segetia; and when the grain was collected and stored, they set over it the goddess Tutilina, thatit might be kept safe. Who would not have thought thatgoddess Segetia sufficient to take care of the standing cornuntil it had passed from the first green blades to the dry ears?Yet she was not enough for men, who loved a multitude ofgods, that the miserable soul, despising the chaste embrace ofthe one true God, should be prostituted to a crowd of demons.Therefore they set Proserpina over the germinating seeds; overthe joints and knots of the stems, the god Nodotus; over thesheaths enfolding the ears, the goddess Volutina; when thesheaths opened that the spike might shoot forth, it wasascribed to the goddess Patelana; when the stems stood allequal with new ears, because the ancients described this' Cloacina, supposed by Lactantius (De falsa relig. i. 20) , Cyprian (De Idol.vanit. ), and Augustine (infra, c. 23) to be the goddess of the " cloaca, " or sewageof Rome. Others, however, suppose it to be equivalent to Cluacina, a title givento Venus, because the Romans after the end of the Sabine war purified themselves (cluere) in the vicinity of her statue.BOOK IV. ] IN WHAT SENSE JUPITER IS SUPREME. 145equalizing by the term hostire, it was ascribed to the goddessHostilina; when the grain was in flower, it was dedicated tothe goddess Flora; when full of milk, to the god Lacturnus;when maturing, to the goddess Matuta; when the crop wasruncated,Runcina.that is, removed from the soil, -to the goddessNor do I yet recount them all, for I am sick ofall this, though it gives them no shame. Only, I have saidthese very few things, in order that it may be understoodthey dare by no means say that the Roman empire has beenestablished, increased, and preserved by their deities, who hadall their own functions assigned to them in such a way, thatno general oversight was entrusted to any one of them.When, therefore, could Segetia take care of the empire, whowas not allowed to take care of the corn and the trees?When could Cunina take thought about war, whose oversightwas not allowed to go beyond the cradles of the babies?When could Nodotus give help in battle, who had nothing todo even with the sheath of the ear, but only with the knots ofthe joints? Every one sets a porter at the door of his house,and because he is a man, he is quite sufficient; but thesepeople have set three gods, Forculus to the doors, Cardea tothe hinge, Limentinus to the threshold.¹ Thus Forculus couldnot at the same time take care also of the hinge and thethreshold.9. Whether the great extent and long duration of the Roman empire should beascribed to Jove, whom his worshippers believe to be the chiefgod.Therefore omitting, or passing by for a little, that crowd ofpetty gods, we ought to inquire into the part performed bythe great gods, whereby Rome has been made so great as toreign so long over so many nations. Doubtless, therefore, thisis the work of Jove. For they will have it that he isthe king of all the gods and goddesses, as is shown by hissceptre and by the Capitol on the lofty hill. Concerning thatgod they publish a saying which, although that of a poet, ismost apt, " All things are full of Jove." " Varro believes thatthis god is worshipped, although called by another name, evenby those who worship one God alone without any image. But' Forculum foribus, Cardeam cardini, Limentinum limini.2 Virgil, Eclog. iii. 60.VOL. I. K146 THE [BOOK IV.CITY OF GOD.if this is so, why has he been so badly used at Rome (andindeed by other nations too), that an image of him should bemade?—a thing which was so displeasing to Varro himself,that although he was overborne by the perverse custom of sogreat a city, he had not the least hesitation in both sayingand writing, that those who have appointed images for thepeople have both taken away fear and added error.10. What opinions those have followed who have set divers gods over divers parts ofthe world.Why, also, is Juno united to him as his wife, who is calledat once " sister and yokefellow? " Because, say they, we haveJove in the ether, Juno in the air; and these two elements areunited, the one being superior, the other inferior. It is nothe, then, of whom it is said, " All things are full of Jove," ifJuno also fills some part. Does each fill either, and are bothof this couple in both of these elements, and in each of themat the same time? Why, then, is the ether given to Jove, theair to Juno? Besides, these two should have been enough.Why is it that the sea is assigned to Neptune, the earth toPluto? And that these also might not be left without mates,Salacia is joined to Neptune, Proserpine to Pluto. For theysay that, as Juno possesses the lower part of the heavens, —thatis, the air, so Salacia possesses the lower part of the sea, andProserpine the lower part of the earth. They seek how theymay patch up these fables, but they find no way. For ifthese things were so, their ancient sages would have maintained that there are three chief elements of the world, notfour, in order that each of the elements might have a pair ofgods. Now, they have positively affirmed that the ether isone thing, the air another. But water, whether higher orlower, is surely water. Suppose it ever so unlike, can it everbe so much so as no longer to be water? And the lowerearth, by whatever divinity it may be distinguished, what elsecan it be than earth? Lo, then, since the whole physicalworld is complete in these four or three elements, where shallMinerva be? What should she possess, what should she fill?For she is placed in the Capitol along with these two, althoughshe is not the offspring of their marriage. Or if they say that¹ Virgil, Æneid, i. 47.BOOK IV. ]GREAT VARIETY OF GODS. 147she possesses the higher part of the ether, and on that accountthe poets have feigned that she sprang from the head of Jove,-why then is she not rather reckoned queen of the gods, becauseshe is superior to Jove? Is it because it would be improperto set the daughter before the father? Why, then, is notthat rule of justice observed concerning Jove himself towardSaturn? Is it because he was conquered? Have they foughtthen? By no means, say they; that is an old wife's fable.Lo, we are not to believe fables, and must hold more worthyopinions concerning the gods! Why, then, do they not assignto the father of Jove a seat, if not of higher, at least of equalhonour? Because Saturn, say they, is length of time.¹ Therefore they who worship Saturn worship Time; and it is insinuated that Jupiter, the king of the gods, was born of Time. Foris anything unworthy said when Jupiter and Juno are said tohave been sprung from Time, if he is the heaven and she isthe earth, since both heaven and earth have been made, andare therefore not eternal? For their learned and wise menhave this also in their books. Nor is that saying taken byVirgil out of poetic figments, but out of the books of philosophers," Then Ether, the Father Almighty, in copious showers descendedInto his spouse's glad bosom, making it fertile, "112—that is, into the bosom of Tellus, or the earth. Althoughhere, also, they will have it that there are some differences,and think that in the earth herself Terra is one thing, Tellusanother, and Tellumo another. And they have all these asgods, called by their own names, distinguished by their ownoffices, and venerated with their own altars and rites. Thissame earth also they call the mother of the gods, so that eventhe fictions of the poets are more tolerable, if, according, notto their poetical but sacred books, Juno is not only the sisterand wife, but also the mother of Jove. The same earth theyworship as Ceres, and also as Vesta; while yet they morefrequently affirm that Vesta is nothing else than fire, pertaining to the hearths, without which the city cannot exist; andtherefore virgins are wont to serve her, because as nothing isborn of a virgin, so nothing is born of fire;-but all this1 Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 25. 2 Virgil, Georg. ii . 325, 326.148 [ BOOK IV.THE CITY OF GOD.nonsense ought to be completely abolished and extinguished byHim who is born of a virgin. For who can bear that, whilethey ascribe to the fire so much honour, and, as it were,chastity, they do not blush sometimes even to call VestaVenus, so that honoured virginity may vanish in her handmaidens? For it Vesta is Venus, how can virgins rightlyserve her by abstaining from venery? Are there two Venuses,the one a virgin, the other not a maid? Or rather, are therethree, one the goddess of virgins, who is also called Vesta,another the goddess of wives, and another of harlots? Toher also the Phenicians offered a gift by prostituting theirdaughters before they united them to husbands.¹ Which ofthese is the wife of Vulcan? Certainly not the virgin, sinceshe has a husband. Far be it from us to say it is the harlot,lest we should seem to wrong the son of Juno and fellowworker of Minerva. Therefore it is to be understood thatshe belongs to the married people; but we would not wishthem to imitate her in what she did with Mars. "Again,"say they, " you return to fables." What sort of justice isthat, to be angry with us because we say such things of theirgods, and not to be angry with themselves, who in theirtheatres most willingly behold the crimes of their gods?And, a thing incredible, if it were not thoroughly wellproved, these very theatric representations of the crimesof their gods have been instituted in honour of these samegods.11. Concerning the many gods whom the pagan doctors defend as being one and the same Jove.Let them therefore assert as many things as ever theyplease in physical reasonings and disputations. One while letJupiter be the soul of this corporeal world, who fills andmoves that whole mass, constructed and compacted out offour, or as many elements as they please; another while, lethim yield to his sister and brothers their parts of it: now lethim be the ether, that from above he may embrace Juno, theair spread out beneath; again, let him be the whole heaven.along with the air, and impregnate with fertilizing showersand seeds the earth, as his wife, and, at the same time, his1 Eusebius, De Præp. Evang. i. 10.BOOK IV. ] WHETHER ALL THE GODS ARE ONE. 149mother (for this is not vile in divine beings); and yet again.(that it may not be necessary to run through them all) , lethim, the one god, of whom many think it has been said bya most noble poet,"For God pervadeth all things,All lands, and the tracts of the sea, and the depth of the heavens, " 1.let it be him who in the ether is Jupiter; in the air, Juno;in the sea, Neptune; in the lower parts of the sea, Salacia;in the earth, Pluto; in the lower part of the earth, Proserpine;on the domestic hearths, Vesta; in the furnace of the workmen,Vulcan; among the stars, Sol, and Luna, and the Stars; indivination, Apollo; in merchandise, Mercury; in Janus, theinitiator; in Terminus, the terminator; Saturn, in time; Marsand Bellona, in war; Liber, in vineyards; Ceres, in corn-fields;Diana, in forests; Minerva, in learning. Finally, let it be himwho is in that crowd, as it were, of plebeian gods: let himpreside under the name of Liber over the seed of men, andunder that of Libera over that of women: let him be Diespiter, who brings forth the birth to the light of day: let himbe the goddess Mena, whom they set over the menstruationof women: let him be Lucina, who is invoked by women inchildbirth: let him bring help to those who are being born, bytaking them up from the bosom of the earth, and let him becalled Opis: let him open the mouth in the crying babe, andbe called the god Vaticanus: let him lift it from the earth,and be called the goddess Levana; let him watch over cradles,and be called the goddess Cunina: let it be no other thanhe who is in those goddesses, who sing the fates of thenew born, and are called Carmentes: let him preside overfortuitous events, and be called Fortuna: in the goddessRumina, let him milk out the breast to the little one, becausethe ancients termed the breast ruma: in the goddess Potina,let him administer drink: in the goddess Educa, let him supplyfood from the terror of infants, let him be styled Paventia:from the hope which comes, Venilia; from voluptuousness,Volupia; from action, Agenor: from the stimulants by whichman is spurred on to much action, let him be named the goddess Stimula: let him be the goddess Strenia, for making1 Virgil, Georg. iv. 221, 222.150 [ BOOK IV.THE CITY OF GOD.strenuous; Numeria, who teaches to number; Camoena, whoteaches to sing: let him be both the god Consus for grantingcounsel, and the goddess Sentia for inspiring sentences: lethim be the goddess Juventas, who, after the robe of boyhoodis laid aside, takes charge of the beginning of the youthfulage: let him be Fortuna Barbata, who endues adults with abeard, whom they have not chosen to honour; so that thisdivinity, whatever it may be, should at least be a male god,named either Barbatus, from barba, like Nodotus, from nodus;or, certainly, not Fortuna, but because he has beards, Fortunius: let him, in the god Jugatinus, yoke couples in marriage; and when the girdle of the virgin wife is loosed, lethim be invoked as the goddess Virginiensis: let him beMutunus or Tuternus, who, among the Greeks, is calledPriapus. If they are not ashamed of it, let all these whichI have named, and whatever others I have not named (for Ihave not thought fit to name all), let all these gods andgoddesses be that one Jupiter, whether, as some will have it,all these are parts of him, or are his powers, as those thinkwho are pleased to consider him the soul of the world, whichis the opinion of most of their doctors, and these the greatest.If these things are so (how evil they may be I do not yetmeanwhile inquire), what would they lose, if they, by a moreprudent abridgment, should worship one god? For what partof him could be contemned if he himself should be worshipped?But if they are afraid lest parts of him should be angry atbeing passed by or neglected, then it is not the case, as theywill have it, that this whole is as the life of one living being,which contains all the gods together, as if they were its virtues, or members, or parts; but each part has its own lifeseparate from the rest, if it is so that one can be angered,appeased, or stirred up more than another. But if it is saidthat all together, that is, the whole Jove himself,—would beoffended if his parts were not also worshipped singly andminutely, it is foolishly spoken. Surely none of them couldbe passed by if he who singly possesses them all should beworshipped. For, to omit other things which are innumerable, when they say that all the stars are parts of Jove,and are all alive, and have rational souls, and thereforeBOOK IV. ] GOD THE SOUL OF THE WORLD. 151without controversy are gods, can they not see how many theydo not worship, to how many they do not build temples orset up altars, and to how very few, in fact, of the stars theyhave thought of setting them up and offering sacrifice? If,therefore, those are displeased who are not severally worshipped, do they not fear to live with only a few appeased,while all heaven is displeased? But if they worship all thestars because they are part of Jove whom they worship, bythe same compendious method they could supplicate them allin him alone. For in this way no one would be displeased,since in him alone all would be supplicated. No one wouldbe contemned, instead of there being just cause of displeasuregiven to the much greater number who are passed by in theworship offered to some; especially when Priapus, stretchedout in vile nakedness, is preferred to those who shine fromtheir supernal abode.12. Concerning the opinion ofthose who have thought that God is the soul ofthe world, and the world is the body ofGod.Ought not men of intelligence, and indeed men of everykind, to be stirred up to examine the nature of this opinion?For there is no need of excellent capacity for this task, thatputting away the desire of contention, they may observe thatif God is the soul of the world, and the world is as a bodyto Him, who is the soul, He must be one living being consisting of soul and body, and that this same God is a kind ofwomb of nature containing all things in Himself, so that thelives and souls of all living things are taken, according to themanner of each one's birth, out of His soul which vivifies thatwhole mass, and therefore nothing at all remains which is nota part of God. And if this is so, who cannot see what impious and irreligious consequences follow, such as that whatever one may trample, he must trample a part of God, and inslaying any living creature, a part of God must be slaughtered?But I am unwilling to utter all that may occur to those whothink of it, yet cannot be spoken without irreverence.13. Concerning those who assert that only rational animals are parts of the one God.But if they contend that only rational animals, such asmen, are parts of God, I do not really see how, if the whole152 THE [BOOK IV.CITY OF GOD.world is God, they can separate beasts from being parts of Him.But what need is there of striving about that? Concerning therational animal himself, that is, man, -what more unhappybelief can be entertained than that a part of God is whippedwhen a boy is whipped? And who, unless he is quite mad,could bear the thought that parts of God can become lascivious,iniquitous, impious, and altogether damnable? In brief, whyis God angry at those who do not worship Him, since theseoffenders are parts of Himself? It remains, therefore, thatthey must say that all the gods have their own lives; thateach one lives for himself, and none of them is a part of anyone; but that all are to be worshipped, —at least as many ascan be known and worshipped; for they are so many it isimpossible that all can be so. And of all these, I believethat Jupiter, because he presides as king, is thought by themto have both established and extended the Roman empire.For if he has not done it, what other god do they believecould have attempted so great a work, when they must allbe occupied with their own offices and works, nor can oneintrude on that of another? Could the kingdom of men thenbe propagated and increased by the king of the gods?14. The enlargement ofkingdoms is unsuitably ascribed to Jove; for if, as theywill have it, Victoria is a goddess, she alone would suffice for this business.Here, first of all, I ask, why even the kingdom itself is notsome god? For why should not it also be so, if Victory isa goddess? Or what need is there of Jove himself in thisaffair, if Victory favours and is propitious, and always goes tothose whom she wishes to be victorious? With this goddessfavourable and propitious, even if Jove was idle and didnothing, what nations could remain unsubdued, what kingdom would not yield? But perhaps it is displeasing to goodmen to fight with most wicked unrighteousness, and provokewith voluntary war neighbours who are peaceable and do nowrong, in order to enlarge a kingdom? If they feel thus, Ientirely approve and praise them.15. Whether it is suitablefor good men to wish to rule more widely.Let them ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for goodmen to rejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity ofBOOK IV. ] WHETHER WIDE EMPIRE IS A BOON. 153those with whom just wars are carried on favours the growthof a kingdom, which would certainly have been small if thepeace and justice of neighbours had not by any wrong provoked the carrying on of war against them; and human affairsbeing thus more happy, all kingdoms would have been small,rejoicing in neighbourly concord; and thus there would havebeen very many kingdoms of nations in the world, as thereare very many houses of citizens in a city. Therefore, tocarry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subduednations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity. But because it would be worse that the injurious shouldrule over those who are more righteous, therefore even that isnot unsuitably called felicity. But beyond doubt it is greaterfelicity to have a good neighbour at peace, than to conquer abad one by making war. Your wishes are bad, when youdesire that one whom you hate or fear should be in such acondition that you can conquer him. If, therefore, by carrying on wars that were just, not impious or unrighteous, theRomans could have acquired so great an empire, ought they notto worship as a goddess even the injustice of foreigners? Forwe see that this has co-operated much in extending the empire,by making foreigners so unjust that they became people withwhom just wars might be carried on, and the empire increased.And why may not injustice, at least that of foreign nations,also be a goddess, if Fear and Dread, and Ague have deservedto be Roman gods? By these two, therefore,—that is, byforeign injustice, and the goddess Victoria, for injustice stirsup causes of wars, and Victoria brings these same wars to ahappy termination, —the empire has increased, even althoughJove has been idle. For what part could Jove have here,when those things which might be thought to be his benefitsare held to be gods, called gods, worshipped as gods, and arethemselves invoked for their own parts? He also might havesome part here, if he himself might be called Empire, just asshe is called Victory. Or if empire is the gift of Jove, whymay not victory also be held to be his gift? And it certainlywould have been held to be so, had he been recognised andworshipped, not as a stone in the Capitol, but as the trueKing of kings and Lord of lords.154 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK IV. .16. What was the reason why the Romans, in detailing separate gods for allthings and all movements of the mind, chose to have the temple of Quiet outside the gates.But I wonder very much, that while they assigned to separategods single things, and (well nigh) all movements of the mind;that while they invoked the goddess Agenoria, who shouldexcite to action; the goddess Stimula, who should stimulateto unusual action; the goddess Murcia, who should not movemen beyond measure, but make them, as Pomponius says,murcid- that is, too slothful and inactive; the goddessStrenua, who should make them strenuous; and that whilethey offered to all these gods and goddesses solemn and publicworship, they should yet have been unwilling to give publicacknowledgment to her whom they name Quies because shemakes men quiet, but built her temple outside the Collinegate. Whether was this a symptom of an unquiet mind, orrather was it thus intimated that he who should persevere inworshipping that crowd, not, to be sure, of gods, but of demons,could not dwell with quiet; to which the true Physician calls,saying, " Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, andye shall find rest unto your souls?"17. Whether, if the highest power belongs to Jove, Victoria also ought to beworshipped.Or do they say, perhaps, that Jupiter sends the goddessVictoria, and that she, as it were, acting in obedience to theking of the gods, comes to those to whom he may have despatched her, and takes up her quarters on their side? Thisis truly said, not of Jove, whom they, according to their ownimagination, feign to be king of the gods, but of Him who isthe true eternal King, because he sends, not Victory, who isno person, but His angel, and causes whom He pleases to conquer; whose counsel may be hidden, but cannot be unjust.For if Victory is a goddess, why is not Triumph also a god,and joined to Victory either as husband, or brother, or son?Indeed, they have imagined such things concerning the gods,that if the poets had feigned the like, and they should havebeen discussed by us, they would have replied that they werelaughable figments of the poets not to be attributed to truedeities. And yet they themselves did not laugh when theyBOOK IV. ] FELICITY AND FORTUNE. 155were, not reading in the poets, but worshipping in the templessuch doating follies. Therefore they should entreat Jovealone for all things, and supplicate him only. For if Victoryis a goddess, and is under him as her king, wherever he mighthave sent her, she could not dare to resist and do her ownwill rather than his.18. With what reason they who think Felicity and Fortune goddesses have distinguished them.What shall we say, besides, of the idea that Felicity also isa goddess? She has received a temple; she has merited analtar; suitable rites of worship are paid to her. She alone,then, should be worshipped. For where she is present, whatgood thing can be absent? But what does a man wish, thathe thinks Fortune also a goddess and worships her? Is felicityone thing, fortune another? Fortune, indeed, may be badas well as good; but felicity, if it could be bad, would not befelicity. Certainly we ought to think all the gods of eithersex (if they also have sex) are only good. This says Plato;this say other philosophers; this say all estimable rulersof the republic and the nations. How is it, then, that thegoddess Fortune is sometimes good, sometimes bad? Is itperhaps the case that when she is bad she is not a goddess,but is suddenly changed into a malignant demon? Howmany Fortunes are there then? Just as many as there aremen who are fortunate, that is, of good fortune. But sincethere must also be very many others who at the very sametime are men of bad fortune, could she, being one and thesame Fortune, be at the same time both bad and good-theone to these, the other to those? She who is the goddess, isshe always good? Then she herself is felicity. Why, then,are two names given her? Yet this is tolerable; for it iscustomary that one thing should be called by two names.But why different temples, different altars, different rituals?There is a reason, say they, because Felicity is she whom thegood have by previous merit; but fortune, which is termedgood without any trial of merit, befalls both good and badmen fortuitously, whence also she is named Fortune. How,therefore, is she good, who without any discernment comesboth to the good and to the bad? Why is she worshipped,156 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK IV.who is thus blind, running at random on any one whatever,so that for the most part she passes by her worshippers, andcleaves to those who despise her? Or if her worshippersprofit somewhat, so that they are seen by her and loved, thenshe follows merit, and does not come fortuitously. What,then, becomes of that definition of fortune? What becomesof the opinion that she has received her very name from fortuitous events? For it profits one nothing to worship her ifshe is truly fortune. But if she distinguishes her worshippers,so that she may benefit them, she is not fortune. Or doesJupiter send her too, whither he pleases? Then let him alonebe worshipped; because Fortune is not able to resist himwhen he commands her, and sends her where he pleases. Or,at least, let the bad worship her, who do not choose to havemerit by which the goddess Felicity might be invited.19. Concerning Fortuna Muliebris.'To this supposed deity, whom they call Fortuna, theyascribe so much, indeed, that they have a tradition that theimage of her, which was dedicated by the Roman matrons, andcalled Fortuna Muliebris, has spoken, and has said, once andagain, that the matrons pleased her by their homage; which,indeed, if it is true, ought not to excite our wonder. For itis not so difficult for malignant demons to deceive, and theyought the rather to advert to their wits and wiles, because itis that goddess who comes by haphazard who has spoken,and not she who comes to reward merit. For Fortuna wasloquacious, and Felicitas mute; and for what other reasonbut that men might not care to live rightly, having madeFortuna their friend, who could make them fortunate withoutany good desert? And truly, if Fortuna speaks, she should atleast speak, not with a womanly, but with a manly voice; lestthey themselves who have dedicated the image should thinkso great a miracle has been wrought by feminine loquacity.20. Concerning Virtue and Faith, which the pagans have honoured with templesand sacred rites, passing by other good qualities, which ought likewise tohave been worshipped, ifdeity was rightly attributed to these.They have made Virtue also a goddess, which, indeed, if it1 The feminine Fortune.BOOK IV. ] VIRTUE AND FAITH. 157could be a goddess And now,, had been preferable to many.because it is not a goddess, but a gift of God, let it be obtainedby prayer from Him, by whom alone it can be given, and thewhole crowd of false gods vanishes. But why is Faith believedto be a goddess, and why does she herself receive temple andaltar? For whoever prudently acknowledges her makes hisown self an abode for her. But how do they know whatfaith is, of which it is the prime and greatest function thatthe true God may be believed in? But why had not virtuesufficed? Does it not include faith also? Forasmuch asthey have thought proper to distribute virtue into four divisions-prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance—and aseach of these divisions has its own virtues, faith is among theparts of justice, and has the chief place with as many of us asknow what that saying means, " The just shall live by faith."But if Faith is a goddess, I wonder why these keen lovers of amultitude of gods have wronged so many other goddesses, bypassing them by, when they could have dedicated temples andaltars to them likewise. Why has temperance not deservedto be a goddess, when some Roman princes have obtained nosmall glory on account of her? Why, in fine, is fortitude nota goddess, who aided Mucius when he thrust his right handinto the flames; who aided Curtius, when for the sake of hiscountry he threw himself headlong into the yawning earth;who aided Decius the sire, and Decius the son, when theydevoted themselves for the army?-though we might question whether these men had true fortitude, if this concernedour present discussion. Why have prudence and wisdommerited no place among the gods? Is it because they areall worshipped under the general name of Virtue itself?Then they could thus worship the true God also, of whomall the other gods are thought to be parts. But in that onename of virtue is comprehended both faith and chastity, whichyet have obtained separate altars in temples of their own.21. That although not understanding them to be the gifts of God, they ought at least to have been content with Virtue and Felicity.These, not verity but vanity has made goddesses. Forthese are gifts of the true God, not themselves goddesses.' Hab. ii. 4.158 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK IV. .However, where virtue and felicity are, what else is soughtfor? What can suffice the man whom virtue and felicity donot suffice? For surely virtue comprehends all things weneed do, felicity all things we need wish for. If Jupiter,then, was worshipped in order that he might give these twothings, because, if extent and duration of empire is somethinggood, it pertains to this same felicity,-why is it not understood that they are not goddesses, but the gifts of God? Butif they are judged to be goddesses, then at least that othergreat crowd of gods should not be sought after. For, havingconsidered all the offices which their fancy has distributedamong the various gods and goddesses, let them find out, ifthey can, anything which could be bestowed by any god whatever on a man possessing virtue, possessing felicity. Whatinstruction could be sought either from Mercury or Minerva,when Virtue already possessed all in herself? Virtue, indeed,is defined by the ancients as itself the art of living well andrightly. Hence, because virtue is called in Greek ȧpern, ithas been thought the Latins have derived from it the termart. But if Virtue cannot come except to the clever, whatneed was there of the god Father Catius, who should makemen cautious, that is, acute, when Felicity could confer this?Because, to be born clever belongs to felicity. Whence,although goddess Felicity could not be worshipped by onenot yet born, in order that, being made his friend, she mightbestow this on him, yet she might confer this favour onparents who were her worshippers, that clever children shouldbe born to them. What need had women in childbirth toinvoke Lucina, when, if Felicity should be present, theywould have, not only a good delivery, but good children too?What need was there to commend the children to the goddessOps when they were being born; to the god Vaticanus intheir birth-cry; to the goddess Cunina when lying cradled;to the goddess Rumina when sucking; to the god Statilinuswhen standing; to the goddess Adeona when coming; toAbeona when going away; to the goddess Mens that theymight have a good mind; to the god Volumnus, and thegoddess Volumna, that they might wish for good things; tothe nuptial gods, that they might make good matches; to theBOOK IV. ] IS FELICITY THE SUPREME GOD? 159rural gods, and chiefly to the goddess Fructesca herself, thatthey might receive the most abundant fruits; to Mars andBellona, that they might carry on war well; to the goddessVictoria, that they might be victorious; to the god Honor,that they might be honoured; to the goddess Pecunia, thatthey might have plenty money; to the god Aesculanus, andhis son Argentinus, that they might have brass and silvercoin? For they set down Aesculanus as the father of Argentinus for this reason, that brass coin began to be used beforesilver. But I wonder Argentinus has not begotten Aurinus,since gold coin also has followed. Could they have him for agod, they would prefer Aurinus both to his father Argentinusand his grandfather Aesculanus, just as they set Jove beforeSaturn. Therefore, what necessity was there on account ofthese gifts, either of soul, or body, or outward estate, to worshipand invoke so great a crowd of gods, all of whom I have notmentioned, nor have they themselves been able to provide forall human benefits, minutely and singly methodized, minuteand single gods, when the one goddess Felicity was able,with the greatest ease, compendiously to bestow the wholeof them? nor should any other be sought after, either for thebestowing of good things, or for the averting of evil. Forwhy should they invoke the goddess Fessonia for the weary;for driving away enemies, the goddess Pellonia; for the sick,as a physician, either Apollo or Esculapius, or both togetherif there should be great danger? Neither should the godSpiniensis be entreated that he might root out the thornsfrom the fields; nor the goddess Rubigo that the mildewmight not come, —Felicitas alone being present and guarding,either no evils would have arisen, or they would have beenquite easily driven away. Finally, since we treat of thesetwo goddesses, Virtue and Felicity, if felicity is the reward ofvirtue, she is not a goddess, but a gift of God. But if she isa goddess, why may she not be said to confer virtue itself,inasmuch as it is a great felicity to attain virtue?22. Concerning the knowledge of the worship due to the gods, which Varroglories in having himself conferred on the Romans.What is it, then, that Varro boasts he has bestowed as avery great benefit on his fellow- citizens, because he not only160 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK IV.recounts the gods who ought to be worshipped by the Romans,but also tells what pertains to each of them? " Just as it isof no advantage," he says, " to know the name and appearanceof any man who is a physician, and not know that he is aphysician, so," he says, " it is of no advantage to know wellthat Esculapius is a god, if you are not aware that he canbestow the gift of health, and consequently do not know whyyou ought to supplicate him." He also affirms this by anothercomparison, saying, " No one is able, not only to live well, buteven to live at all, if he does not know who is a smith, who abaker, who a weaver, from whom he can seek any utensil,whom he may take for a helper, whom for a leader, whom for ateacher;" asserting, " that in this way it can be doubtful to noone, that thus the knowledge of the gods is useful, if one canknow what force, and faculty, or power any god may have inanything. For from this we may be able," he says, "to knowwhat god we ought to call to, and invoke for any cause; lestwe should do as too many are wont to do, and desire waterfrom Liber, and wine from Lymphs." Very useful, forsooth!Who would not give this man thanks if he could show truethings, and if he could teach that the one true God, from whomall good things are, is to be worshipped by men?23. Concerning Felicity, whom the Romans, who venerate many gods, for a longtime did not worship with divine honour, though she alone would havesufficed instead of all.But how does it happen, if their books and rituals are true,and Felicity is a goddess, that she herself is not appointed asthe only one to be worshipped, since she could confer allthings, and all at once make men happy? For who wishesanything for any other reason than that he may becomehappy? Why was it left to Lucullus to dedicate a templeto so great a goddess at so late a date, and after so manyRoman rulers? Why did Romulus himself, ambitious as hewas of founding a fortunate city, not erect a temple to thisgoddess before all others? Why did he supplicate the othergods for anything, since he would have lacked nothing had shebeen with him? For even he himself would neither havebeen first a king, then afterwards, as they think, a god, if thisgoddess had not been propitious to him. Why, therefore, didBOOK IV. ] THE GODDESS FELICITY SLIGHTED. 161he appoint as gods for the Romans, Janus, Jove, Mars, Picus,Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and others, if there were more ofthem? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sun, Moon,Vulcan, Light, and whatever others he added, among whomwas even the goddess Cloacina, while Felicity was neglected?Why did Numa appoint so many gods and so many goddesseswithout this one? Was it perhaps because he could not seeher among so great a crowd? Certainly king Hostilius wouldnot have introduced the new gods Fear and Dread to be propitiated, if he could have known or might have worshipped thisgoddess. For, in presence of Felicity, Fear and Dread wouldhave disappeared, -I do not say propitiated, but put to flight.Next, I ask, how is it that the Roman empire had alreadyimmensely increased before any one worshipped Felicity? Wasthe empire, therefore, more great than happy? For how couldtrue felicity be there, where there was not true piety? Forpiety is the genuine worship of the true God, and not the worship of as many demons as there are false gods. Yet evenafterwards, when Felicity had already been taken into thenumber of the gods, the great infelicity of the civil warsensued. Was Felicity perhaps justly indignant, both becauseshe was invited so late, and was invited not to honour, butrather to reproach, because along with her were worshippedPriapus, and Cloacina, and Fear and Dread, and Ague, andothers which were not gods to be worshipped, but the crimesof the worshippers? Last of all, if it seemed good to worshipso great a goddess along with a most unworthy crowd, why atleast was she not worshipped in a more honourable way thanthe rest? For is it not intolerable that Felicity is placedneither among the gods Consentes,¹ whom they allege to beadmitted into the council of Jupiter, nor among the gods whomthey term Select? Some temple might be made for her whichmight be pre-eminent, both in loftiness of site and dignity ofstyle. Why, indeed, not something better than is made forJupiter himself? For who gave the kingdom even to Jupiterbut Felicity? I am supposing that when he reigned he washappy. Felicity, however, is certainly more valuable than a¹ So called from the consent or harmony of the celestial movements of thesegods.VOL. I. L162 [BOOK IV.THE CITY OF GOD.kingdom. For no one doubts that a man might easily befound who may fear to be made a king; but no one is foundwho is unwilling to be happy. Therefore, if it is thought theycan be consulted by augury, or in any other way, the gods themselves should be consulted about this thing, whether they maywish to give place to Felicity. If, perchance, the place shouldalready be occupied by the temples and altars of others, wherea greater and more lofty temple might be built to Felicity,even Jupiter himself might give way, so that Felicity mightrather obtain the very pinnacle of the Capitoline hill.Forthere is not any one who would resist Felicity, except, whichis impossible, one who might wish to be unhappy. Certainly,if he should be consulted, Jupiter would in no case do whatthose three gods, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas, did, who positively refused to give place to their superior and king. For,as their books record, when king Tarquin wished to constructthe Capitol, and perceived that the place which seemed to himto be the most worthy and suitable was preoccupied by othergods, not daring to do anything contrary to their pleasure, andbelieving that they would willingly give place to a god whowas so great, and was their own master, because there weremany of them there when the Capitol was founded, he inquiredby augury whether they chose to give place to Jupiter, andthey were all willing to remove thence except those whom Ihave named, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas; and therefore theCapitol was built in such a way that these three also might bewithin it, yet with such obscure signs that even the most learnedmen could scarcely know this. Surely, then, Jupiter himselfwould by no means despise Felicity as he was himself despisedby Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. But even they themselveswho had not given place to Jupiter, would certainly give placeto Felicity, who had made Jupiter king over them. Or if theyshould not give place, they would act thus not out of contemptof her, but because they chose rather to be obscure in the houseof Felicity, than to be eminent without her in their own places.Thus the goddess Felicity being established in the largestand loftiest place, the citizens should learn whence the furtherance of every good desire should be sought. And so, by thepersuasion of nature herself, the superfluous multitude of otherBOOK IV. ] PROPER PLACE OF FELICITY. 163gods being abandoned, Felicity alone would be worshipped,prayer would be made to her alone, her temple alone wouldbe frequented by the citizens who wished to be happy, whichno one of them would not wish; and thus felicity, who wassought for from all the gods, would be sought for only fromher own self. For who wishes to receive from any god anything else than felicity, or what he supposes to tend to felicity?Wherefore, if Felicity has it in her power to be with whatman she pleases (and she has it if she is a goddess) , what follyis it, after all, to seek from any other god her whom you canobtain by request from her own self! Therefore they ought tohonour this goddess above other gods, even by dignity of place.For, as we read in their own authors, the ancient Romans paidgreater honours to I know not what Summanus, to whom theyattributed nocturnal thunderbolts, than to Jupiter, to whomdiurnal thunderbolts were held to pertain. But, after a famousand conspicuous temple had been built to Jupiter, owing tothe dignity of the building, the multitude resorted to him inso great numbers, that scarce one can be found who rememberseven to have read the name of Summanus, which now he cannotonce hear named. But if Felicity is not a goddess, because, asis true, it is a gift of God, that god must be sought who haspower to give it, and that hurtful multitude of false gods mustbe abandoned which the vain multitude of foolish men followsafter, making gods to itself of the gifts of God, and offendingHimself whose gifts they are by the stubbornness of a proudwill. For he cannot be free from infelicity who worshipsFelicity as a goddess, and forsakes God, the giver of felicity;just as he cannot be free from hunger who licks a painted loafof bread, and does not buy it of the man who has a real one.24. The reasons by which the pagans attempt to defend their worshippingamong the gods the divine gifts themselves.We may, however, consider their reasons. Is it to bebelieved, say they, that our forefathers were besotted even tosuch a degree as not to know that these things are divinegifts, and not gods? But as they knew that such things aregranted to no one, except by some god freely bestowing them,they called the gods whose names they did not find out by thenames of those things which they deemed to be given by them;164 THE [BOOK IV.CITY OF GOD.sometimes slightly altering the name for that purpose, as, forexample, from war they have named Bellona, not bellum; fromcradles, Cunina, not cuna; from standing corn, Segetia, not seges;from apples, Pomona, not pomum; from oxen, Bubona, not bos.Sometimes, again, with no alteration of the word, just as thethings themselves are named, so that the goddess who givesmoney is called Pecunia, and money is not thought to be itselfa goddess: so of Virtus, who gives virtue; Honor, who giveshonour; Concordia, who gives concord; Victoria, who givesvictory. So, they say, when Felicitas is called a goddess, whatis meant is not the thing itself which is given, but that deityby whom felicity is given.25. Concerning the one God only to be worshipped, who, although His name isunknown, is yet deemed to be the giver offelicity.Having had that reason rendered to us, we shall perhapsmuch more easily persuade, as we wish, those whose heart hasnot become too much hardened. For if now human infirmityhas perceived that felicity cannot be given except by somegod; if this was perceived by those who worshipped so manygods, at whose head they set Jupiter himself; if, in theirignorance of the name of Him by whom felicity was given,they agreed to call Him by the name of that very thing whichthey believed He gave;—then it follows that they thoughtthat felicity could not be given even by Jupiter himself, whomthey already worshipped, but certainly by him whom theythought fit to worship under the name of Felicity itself. Ithoroughly affirm the statement that they believed felicity tobe given by a certain God whom they knew not: let Himtherefore be sought after, let Him be worshipped, and it isenough. Let the train of innumerable demons be repudiated,and let this God suffice every man whom his gift suffices. Forhim, I say, God the giver of felicity will not be enough toworship, for whom felicity itself is not enough to receive.But let him for whom it suffices (and man has nothing morehe ought to wish for) serve the one God, the giver of felicity.This God is not he whom they call Jupiter. For if theyacknowledged him to be the giver of felicity, they would notseek, under the name of Felicity itself, for another god or goddessby whom felicity might be given; nor could they tolerate thatBOOK IV. ] OF PLAYS. 165Jupiter himself should be worshipped with such infamous attributes. For he is said to be the debaucher of the wives of others;he is the shameless lover and ravisher of a beautiful boy.26. Of the scenic plays, the celebration of which the gods have exactedfromtheir worshippers." But," says Cicero, " Homer invented these things, andtransferred things human to the gods: I would rather transferthings divine to us." The poet, by ascribing such crimes tothe gods, has justly displeased the grave man. Why, then, arethe scenic plays, where these crimes are habitually spoken of,acted, exhibited, in honour of the gods, reckoned among thingsdivine by the most learned men? Cicero should exclaim, notagainst the inventions of the poets, but against the customs ofthe ancients. Would not they have exclaimed in reply, Whathave we done? The gods themselves have loudly demandedthat these plays should be exhibited in their honour, havefiercely exacted them, have menaced destruction unless thiswas performed, have avenged its neglect with great severity,and have manifested pleasure at the reparation of such neglect.Among their virtuous and wonderful deeds the following isrelated. It was announced in a dream to Titus Latinius, aRoman rustic, that he should go to the senate and tell themto recommence the games of Rome, because on the first dayof their celebration a condemned criminal had been led topunishment in sight of the people, an incident so sad as todisturb the gods who were seeking amusement from thegames. And when the peasant who had received this intimation was afraid on the following day to deliver it to thesenate, it was renewed next night in a severer form: helost his son, because of his neglect. On the third nighthe was warned that a yet graver punishment was impending, if he should still refuse obedience. When even thushe did not dare to obey, he fell into a virulent and horribledisease. But then, on the advice of his friends, he gaveinformation to the magistrates, and was carried in a litterinto the senate, and having, on declaring his dream, immediately recovered strength, went away on his own feet whole. *The senate, amazed at so great a miracle, decreed that theTusc. Quæst. i. 26. 2 Livy, ii . 36; Cicero, De Divin. 26.166 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK IV. .games should be renewed at fourfold cost. What sensibleman does not see that men, being put upon by malignantdemons, from whose domination nothing save the grace ofGod through Jesus Christ our Lord sets free, have been compelled by force to exhibit to such gods as these, plays which,if well advised, they should condemn as shameful? Certain itis that in these plays the poetic crimes of the gods are celebrated, yet they are plays which were re-established by decreeof the senate, under compulsion of the gods. In these playsthe most shameless actors celebrated Jupiter as the corrupterof chastity, and thus gave him pleasure. If that was a fiction,he would have been moved to anger; but if he was delightedwith the representation of his crimes, even although fabulous,then, when he happened to be worshipped, who but the devilcould be served? Is it so that he could found, extend, andpreserve the Roman empire, who was more vile than anyRoman man whatever, to whom such things were displeasing?Could he give felicity who was so infelicitously worshipped,and who, unless he should be thus worshipped, was yet moreinfelicitously provoked to anger?27. Concerning the three kinds of gods about which the pontiff Scævola has discoursed.It is recorded that the very learned pontiff Scævola¹ haddistinguished about three kinds of gods-one introduced bythe poets, another by the philosophers, another by the statesmen. The first kind he declares to be trifling, because manyunworthy things have been invented by the poets concerningthe gods; the second does not suit states, because it containssome things that are superfluous, and some, too, which it wouldbe prejudicial for the people to know. It is no great matterabout the superfluous things, for it is a common saying ofskilful lawyers, " Superfluous things do no harm." But whatare those things which do harm when brought before themultitude? "These," he says, " that Hercules, Esculapius,Castor and Pollux, are not gods; for it is declared by learnedmen that these were but men, and yielded to the common1 Called by Cicero (De Oratore, i. 39) the most eloquent of lawyers, and the best skilled lawyer among eloquent men.2 Superflua non nocent.BOOK IV. ] OPINIONS OF SCEVOLA. 167lot of mortals. " What else? "That states have not thetrue images of the gods; because the true God has neithersex, nor age, nor definite corporeal members. " The pontiff isnot willing that the people should know these things; for hedoes not think they are false. He thinks it expedient, therefore, that states should be deceived in matters of religion;which Varro himself does not hesitate even to say in hisbooks about things divine. Excellent religion! to which theweak, who requires to be delivered, may flee for succour; andwhen he seeks for the truth by which he may be delivered, itis believed to be expedient for him that he be deceived. And,truly, in these same books, Scævola is not silent as to hisreason for rejecting the poetic sort of gods,-to wit, " becausethey so disfigure the gods that they could not bear comparison even with good men, when they make one to committheft, another adultery; or, again, to say or do something elsebasely and foolishly; as that three goddesses contested (witheach other) the prize of beauty, and the two vanquished byVenus destroyed Troy; that Jupiter turned himself into abull or swan that he might copulate with some one; that agoddess married a man, and Saturn devoured his children;that, in fine, there is nothing that could be imagined, eitherof the miraculous or vicious, which may not be found there,and yet is far removed from the nature of the gods." O chiefpontiff Scævola, take away the plays if thou art able; instructthe people that they may not offer such honours to the immortal gods, in which, if they like, they may admire the crimesof the gods, and, so far as it is possible, may, if they please,imitate them. But if the people shall have answered thee,You, O pontiff, have brought these things in among us, thenask the gods themselves at whose instigation you have orderedthese things, that they may not order such things to be offeredto them. For if they are bad, and therefore in no way to bebelieved concerning the majority of the gods, the greater is thewrong done the gods about whom they are feigned with impunity. But they do not hear thee, they are demons, theyteach wicked things, they rejoice in vile things; not only dothey not count it a wrong if these things are feigned aboutthem, but it is a wrong they are quite unable to bear if they168 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK IV. .are not acted at their stated festivals. But now, if thouwouldst call on Jupiter against them, chiefly for that reasonthat more of his crimes are wont to be acted in the scenicplays, is it not the case that, although you call him godJupiter, by whom this whole world is ruled and administered,it is he to whom the greatest wrong is done by you, becauseyou have thought he ought to be worshipped along with them,and have styled him their king?28. Whether the worship ofthe gods has been of service to the Romans inobtaining and extending the empire.Therefore such gods, who are propitiated by such honours,or rather are impeached by them (for it is a greater crime todelight in having such things said of them falsely, than evenif they could be said truly), could never by any means havebeen able to increase and preserve the Roman empire. Forif they could have done it, they would rather have bestowedso grand a gift on the Greeks, who, in this kind of divinethings, that is, in scenic plays,-have worshipped them morehonourably and worthily, although they have not exemptedthemselves from those slanders of the poets, by whom theysaw the gods torn in pieces, giving them licence to ill-useany man they pleased, and have not deemed the scenicplayers themselves to be base, but have held them worthyeven of distinguished honour. But just as the Romans wereable to have gold money, although they did not worship agod Aurinus, so also they could have silver and brass coin,and yet worship neither Argentinus nor his father Æsculanus;and so of all the rest, which it would be irksome for me todetail. It follows, therefore, both that they could not by anymeans attain such dominion if the true God was unwilling;and that if these gods, false and many, were unknown or contemned, and He alone was known and worshipped with sincerefaith and virtue, they would both have a better kingdom here,whatever might be its extent, and whether they might haveone here or not, would afterwards receive an eternal kingdom.29. Ofthe falsity ofthe augury by which the strength and stability of theRoman empire was considered to be indicated.For what kind of augury is that which they have declaredto be most beautiful, and to which I referred a little ago, thatBOOK IV. ]AUGURIES REGARDING THE EMPIRE. 169-Mars, and Terminus, and Juventas would not give place evento Jove the king of the gods? For thus, they say, it wassignified that the nation dedicated to Mars, that is, the Roman,-should yield to none the place it once occupied; likewise,that on account of the god Terminus, no one would be able todisturb the Roman frontiers; and also, that the Roman youth,because of the goddess Juventas, should yield to no one. Letthem see, therefore, how they can hold him to be the kingof their gods, and the giver of their own kingdom, if theseauguries set him down for an adversary, to whom it wouldhave been honourable not to yield. However, if these thingsare true, they need not be at all afraid. For they are notgoing to confess that the gods who would not yield to Jovehave yielded to Christ. For, without altering the boundariesof the empire, Jesus Christ has proved Himself able to drivethem, not only from their temples, but from the hearts oftheir worshippers. But, before Christ came in the flesh, and,indeed, before these things which we have quoted from theirbooks could have been written, but yet after that auspice wasmade under king Tarquin, the Roman army has been diverstimes scattered or put to flight, and has shown the falsenessof the auspice, which they derived from the fact that the goddess Juventas had not given place to Jove; and the nationdedicated to Mars was trodden down in the city itself by theinvading and triumphant Gauls; and the boundaries of theempire, through the falling away of many cities to Hannibal,had been hemmed into a narrow space. Thus the beauty ofthe auspices is made void, and there has remained only thecontumacy against Jove, not of gods, but of demons. For itis one thing not to have yielded, and another to have returnedwhither you have yielded. Besides, even afterwards, in theoriental regions, the boundaries of the Roman empire werechanged by the will of Hadrian; for he yielded up to thePersian empire those three noble provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. Thus that god Terminus, who according to these books was the guardian of the Roman frontiers,and by that most beautiful auspice had not given place toJove, would seem to have been more afraid of Hadrian, aking of men, than of the king of the gods. The aforesaid170 [BOOK IV.THE CITY OF GOD.provinces having also been taken back again, almost withinour own recollection the frontier fell back, when Julian, givenup to the oracles of their gods, with immoderate daring orderedthe victualling ships to be set on fire. The army being thusleft destitute of provisions, and he himself also being presentlykilled by the enemy, and the legions being hard pressed, whiledismayed by the loss of their commander, they were reducedto such extremities that no one could have escaped, unless byarticles of peace the boundaries of the empire had then beenestablished where they still remain; not, indeed, with so greata loss as was suffered by the concession of Hadrian, but stillat a considerable sacrifice. It was a vain augury, then, thatthe god Terminus did not yield to Jove, since he yielded tothe will of Hadrian, and yielded also to the rashness of Julian,and the necessity of Jovinian. The more intelligent and graveRomans have seen these things, but have had little poweragainst the custom of the state, which was bound to observethe rites of the demons; because even they themselves, althoughthey perceived that these things were vain, yet thought thatthe religious worship which is due to God should be paid tothe nature of things which is established under the rule andgovernment of the one true God, " serving," as saith theapostle, " the creature more than the Creator, who is blessedfor evermore." The help of this true God was necessary tosend holy and truly pious men, who would die for the truereligion that they might remove the false from among theliving." 130. What kind of things even their worshippers have owned they have thoughtabout the gods of the nations.Cicero the augur laughs at auguries, and reproves men forregulating the purposes of life by the cries of crows and jackdaws. But it will be said that an academic philosopher, whoargues that all things are uncertain, is unworthy to have anyauthority in these matters. In the second book of his DeNatura Deorum,3 he introduces Lucilius Balbus, who, aftershowing that superstitions have their origin in physical andphilosophical truths, expresses his indignation at the setting up1 Rom. i. 25.8 Cic. De Nat. Deorum, lib. ii. c. 28.2 De Divin. ii. 37.BOOK IV. ] CICERO ON SUPERSTITION. 171<div class="sm:flex sm:items-center sm:justify-center sm:flex-row sm:space-x-1 insert" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;"><ins class="adsbygoogle sm:w-1/2" style="display:block; text-align:center;" data-ad-layout="in-article" data-ad-format="fluid" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-adtest="off"></ins><script>(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script><ins class="adsbygoogle sm:w-1/2" style="display:block; text-align:center;" data-ad-layout="in-article" data-ad-format="fluid" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-adtest="off"></ins><script>(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script></div></p><dl><dd></dd></dl><p>of images and fabulous notions, speaking thus: " Do you nottherefore see that from true and useful physical discoveries thereason may be drawn away to fabulous and imaginary gods?This gives birth to false opinions and turbulent errors, andsuperstitions well-nigh old-wifeish. For both the forms ofthe gods, and their ages, and clothing, and ornaments, aremade familiar to us; their genealogies, too, their marriages,kinships, and all things about them, are debased to the likeness of human weakness. They are even introduced as havingperturbed minds; for we have accounts of the lusts, cares,and angers of the gods. Nor, indeed, as the fables go, havethe gods been without their wars and battles. And that notonly when, as in Homer, some gods on either side have defended two opposing armies, but they have even carried onwars on their own account, as with the Titans or with theGiants. Such things it is quite absurd either to say or tobelieve they are utterly frivolous and groundless. " Behold,now, what is confessed by those who defend the gods of thenations. Afterwards he goes on to say that some thingsbelong to superstition, but others to religion, which he thinks.good to teach according to the Stoics. "For not only thephilosophers," he says, " but also our forefathers, have made adistinction between superstition and religion. For those," hesays, " who spent whole days in prayer, and offered sacrifice,that their children might outlive them, are called superstitious." Who does not see that he is trying, while he fearsthe public prejudice, to praise the religion of the ancients, andthat he wishes to disjoin it from superstition, but cannot findout how to do so? For if those who prayed and sacrificedall day were called superstitious by the ancients, were thosealso called so who instituted (what he blames) the images ofthe gods of diverse age and distinct clothing, and invented thegenealogies of gods, their marriages, and kinships? When,therefore, these things are found fault with as superstitious,he implicates in that fault the ancients who instituted andworshipped such images. Nay, he implicates himself, who,with whatever eloquence he may strive to extricate himself1 Superstition, from superstes. Against this etymology of Cicero, see Lact.Inst. Div. iv. 28.172 THE [BOOK IV.CITY OF GOD.and be free, was yet under the necessity of venerating theseimages; nor dared he so much as whisper in a discourse to thepeople what in this disputation he plainly sounds forth. Letus Christians, therefore, give thanks to the Lord our God,-notto heaven and earth, as that author argues, but to Him whohas made heaven and earth; because these superstitions, whichthat Balbus, like a babbler,¹ scarcely reprehends, He, by themost deep lowliness of Christ, by the preaching of the apostles,by the faith of the martyrs dying for the truth and livingwith the truth, has overthrown, not only in the hearts of thereligious, but even in the temples of the superstitious, by theirown free service.31. Concerning the opinions of Varro, who, while reprobating the popular belief,thought that their worship should be confined to one god, though he was unable to discover the true God.What says Varro himself, whom we grieve to have found,although not by his own judgment, placing the scenic playsamong things divine? When in many passages he is exhorting, like a religious man, to the worship of the gods, does henot in doing so admit that he does not in his own judgmentbelieve those things which he relates that the Roman statehas instituted; so that he does not hesitate to affirm that ifhe were founding a new state, he could enumerate the godsand their names better by the rule of nature? But beingborn into a nation already ancient, he says that he finds himself bound to accept the traditional names and surnames ofthe gods, and the histories connected with them, and that hispurpose in investigating and publishing these details is to incline the people to worship the gods, and not to despise them.By which words this most acute man sufficiently indicatesthat he does not publish all things, because they would notonly have been contemptible to himself, but would haveseemed despicable even to the rabble, unless they had beenpassed over in silence. I should be thought to conjecturethese things, unless he himself, in another passage, had openlysaid, in speaking of religious rites, that many things are truewhich it is not only not useful for the common people toknow, but that it is expedient that the people should think1 Balbus, from balbutiens, stammering, babbling.BOOK IV. ] VARRO ON SUPERSTITION. 173otherwise, even though falsely, and therefore the Greeks haveshut up the religious ceremonies and mysteries in silence,and within walls. In this he no doubt expresses the policyof the so-called wise men by whom states and peoples areruled. Yet by this crafty device the malign demons arewonderfully delighted, who possess alike the deceivers and thedeceived, and from whose tyranny nothing sets free save thegrace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.The same most acute and learned author also says, thatthose alone seem to him to have perceived what God is, whohave believed Him to be the soul of the world, governing itby design and reason. And by this, it appears, that althoughhe did not attain to the truth, -for the true God is not asoul, but the maker and author of the soul,-yet if he couldhave been free to go against the prejudices of custom, he couldhave confessed and counselled others that the one God oughtto be worshipped, who governs the world by design andreason; so that on this subject only this point would remainto be debated with him, that he had called Him a soul, andnot rather the creator of the soul. He says, also, that theancient Romans, for more than a hundred and seventy years,worshipped the gods without an image." " And if thiscustom," he says, " could have remained till now, the godswould have been more purely worshipped." In favour ofthis opinion, he cites as a witness among others the Jewishnation; nor does he hesitate to conclude that passage bysaying of those who first consecrated images for the people,that they have both taken away religious fear from theirfellow-citizens, and increased error, wisely thinking that thegods easily fall into contempt when exhibited under thestolidity of images. But as he does not say they havetransmitted error, but that they have increased it, he therefore wishes it to be understood that there was error alreadywhen there were no images. Wherefore, when he says theyalone have perceived what God is who have believed Him tobe the governing soul of the world, and thinks that the ritesof religion would have been more purely observed withoutimages, who fails to see how near he has come to the truth?¹ See Cicero, De Nat. Deor. i. 2. Plutarch's Numa, c. 8.174 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK IV. .For if he had been able to do anything against so inveteratean error, he would certainly have given it as his opinion boththat the one God should be worshipped, and that He shouldbe worshipped without an image; and having so nearly discovered the truth, perhaps he might easily have been put inmind of the mutability of the soul, and might thus have perceived that the true God is, that immutable nature whichmade the soul itself. Since these things are so, whateverridicule such men have poured in their writings against theplurality of the gods, they have done so rather as compelledby the secret will of God to confess them, than as trying topersuade others. If, therefore, any testimonies are adducedby us from these writings, they are adduced for the confutation of those who are unwilling to consider from how greatand malignant a power of the demons the singular sacrificeof the shedding of the most holy blood, and the gift of theimparted Spirit, can set us free.32. In what interest the princes of the nations wished false religions to continueamongthe people subject to them.Varro says also, concerning the generations of the gods, thatthe people have inclined to the poets rather than to thenatural philosophers; and that therefore their forefathers, —that is, the ancient Romans, -believed both in the sex andthe generations of the gods, and settled their marriages;which certainly seems to have been done for no other causeexcept that it was the business of such men as were prudentand wise to deceive the people in matters of religion, and inthat very thing not only to worship, but also to imitate thedemons, whose greatest lust is to deceive. For just as thedemons cannot possess any but those whom they have deceived with guile, so also men in princely office , not indeedbeing just, but like demons, have persuaded the people in thename of religion to receive as true those things which theythemselves knew to be false; in this way, as it were, bindingthem up more firmly in civil society, so that they might inlike manner possess them as subjects. But who that wasweak and unlearned could escape the deceits of both theprinces of the state and the demons?BOOK IV. ] GOD THE SUPREME GOVERNOR. 17533. That the times ofall kings and kingdoms are ordained by the judgmentand power ofthe true God.Therefore that God, the author and giver of felicity, becauseHe alone is the true God, Himself gives earthly kingdoms bothto good and bad. Neither does He do this rashly, and, as it were,fortuitously, because He is God, not fortune, but according to the order of things and times, which is hidden from us,but thoroughly known to Himself; which same order of times,however, He does not serve as subject to it, but Himself rulesas lord and appoints as governor. Felicity He gives only tothe good. Whether a man be a subject or a king makes nodifference he may equally either possess or not possess it.And it shall be full in that life where kings and subjectsexist no longer. And therefore earthly kingdoms are givenby Him both to the good and the bad; lest His worshippers,still under the conduct of a very weak mind, should covetthese gifts from Him as some great things. And this is themystery of the Old Testament, in which the New was hidden,that there even earthly gifts are promised: those who werespiritual understanding even then, although not yet openlydeclaring, both the eternity which was symbolized by theseearthly things, and in what gifts of God true felicity could be.found.34. Concerning the kingdom ofthe Jews, which was founded by the one and trueGod, and preserved by Him as long as they remained in the true religion.Therefore, that it might be known that these earthly goodthings, after which those pant who cannot imagine betterthings, remain in the power of the one God Himself, not ofthe many false gods whom the Romans have formerly believed worthy of worship, He multiplied His people in Egyptfrom being very few, and delivered them out of it by wonderful signs. Nor did their women invoke Lucina when theiroffspring was being incredibly multiplied; and that nationhaving increased incredibly, He Himself delivered, He Himself saved them from the hands of the Egyptians, who persecuted them, and wished to kill all their infants. Without thegoddess Rumina they sucked; without Cunina theywere cradled;without Educa and Potina they took food and drink; withoutall those puerile gods they were educated; without the nuptial176 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK IV.gods they were married; without the worship of Priapus theyhad conjugal intercourse; without invocation of Neptune thedivided sea opened up a way for them to pass over, and overwhelmed with its returning waves their enemies who pursuedthem. Neither did they consecrate any goddess Mannia whenthey received manna from heaven; nor, when the smitten rockpoured forth water to them when they thirsted, did theyworship Nymphs and Lymphs. Without the mad rites ofMars and Bellona they carried on war; and while, indeed,they did not conquer without victory, yet they did not hold itto be a goddess, but the gift of their God. Without Segetiathey had harvests; without Bubona, oxen; honey withoutMellona; apples without Pomona: and, in a word, everythingfor which the Romans thought they must supplicate so greata crowd of false gods, they received much more happily fromthe one true God. And if they had not sinned against Himwith impious curiosity, which seduced them like magic arts,and drew them to strange gods and idols, and at last led themto kill Christ, their kingdom would have remained to them,and would have been, if not more spacious, yet more happy,than that of Rome. And now that they are dispersed throughalmost all lands and nations, it is through the providence ofthat one true God; that whereas the images, altars, groves,and temples of the false gods are everywhere overthrown, andtheir sacrifices prohibited, it may be shown from their bookshow this has been foretold by their prophets so long before;lest, perhaps, when they should be read in ours, they mightseem to be invented by us. But now, reserving what is tofollow for the following book, we must here set a bound tothe prolixity of this one.BOOK V.]PREFACE. 177BOOK FIFTH.¹ARGUMENT.AUGUSTINE FIRST DISCUSSES THE DOCTRINE OF FATE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONFUTING THOSE WHO ARE DISPOSED TO REFER TO FATE THE POWER ANDINCREASE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, WHICH COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TOFALSE GODS, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING BOOK. AFTER THAT,HE PROVES THAT THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN GOD'S PRESCIENCEAND OUR FREE WILL. HE THEN SPEAKS OF THE MANNERS OF THE ANCIENTROMANS, AND SHOWS IN WHAT SENSE IT WAS DUE TO THE VIRTUE OF THEROMANS THEMSELVES, AND IN HOW FAR TO THE counsel of God, that he INCREASED THEIR DOMINION, THOUGH THEY DID NOT WORSHIP HIM.FINALLY, HE EXPLAINS WHAT IS TO BE ACCOUNTED THE TRUE HAPPINESSOF THE CHRISTIAN EMPERORS.SINCPREFACE.VINCE, then, it is established that the complete attainmentof all we desire is that which constitutes felicity, whichis no goddess, but a gift of God, and that therefore mencan worship no god save Him who is able to make themhappy, and were Felicity herself a goddess, she would withreason be the only object of worship, -since, I say, this isestablished, let us now go on to consider why God, who is ableto give with all other things those good gifts which can bepossessed by men who are not good, and consequently nothappy, has seen fit to grant such extended and long- continueddominion to the Roman empire; for that this was not effectedby that multitude of false gods which they worshipped, wehave both already adduced, and shall, as occasion offers, yetadduce considerable proof.1. That the cause ofthe Roman empire, and of all kingdoms, is neither fortuitous nor consists in the position ofthe stars.2The cause, then, of the greatness of the Roman empire isneither fortuitous nor fatal, according to the judgment or1 Written in the year 415.2 On the application of astrology to national prosperity, and the success ofcertain religions, see Lecky's Rationalism, i. 303.VOL. I. M178 THE [ BOOK V. CITY OF GOD.opinion of those who call those things fortuitous which eitherhave no causes, or such causes as do not proceed from someintelligible order, and those things fatal which happen independently of the will of God and man, by the necessity of acertain order. In a word, human kingdoms are established bydivine providence. And if any one attributes their existence tofate, because he calls the will or the power of God itself by thename of fate, let him keep his opinion, but correct his language.For why does he not say at first what he will say afterwards,when some one shall put the question to him, What he meansbyfate? For when men hear that word, according to theordinary use of the language, they simply understand by itthe virtue of that particular position of the stars which mayexist at the time when any one is born or conceived, whichsome separate altogether from the will of God, whilst othersaffirm that this also is dependent on that will. But those whoare of opinion that, apart from the will of God, the stars determine what we shall do, or what good things we shall possess,or what evils we shall suffer, must be refused a hearing by all,not only by those who hold the true religion, but by those whowish to be the worshippers of any gods whatsoever, even falsegods. For what does this opinion really amount to but this,that no god whatever is to be worshipped or prayed to?Against these, however, our present disputation is not intended.to be directed, but against those who, in defence of those whomthey think to be gods, oppose the Christian religion. They,however, who make the position of the stars depend on thedivine will, and in a manner decree what character each manshall have, and what good or evil shall happen to him, ifthey think that these same stars have that power conferredupon them by the supreme power of God, in order that theymay determine these things according to their will, do a greatinjury to the celestial sphere, in whose most brilliant senate,and most splendid senate-house, as it were, they suppose thatwicked deeds are decreed to be done, -such deeds as that if anyterrestrial state should decree them, it would be condemned tooverthrow by the decree of the whole human race, Whatjudgment, then, is left to God concerning the deeds of men,who is Lord both of the stars and of men, when to these deedsBOOK V. ] ASTROLOGY. 179.a celestial necessity is attributed? Or, if they do not say thatthe stars, though they have indeed received a certain power fromGod, who is supreme, determine those things according to theirown discretion, but simply that His commands are fulfilled bythem instrumentally in the application and enforcing of suchnecessities, are we thus to think concerning God even whatit seemed unworthy that we should think concerning the willof the stars? But, if the stars are said rather to signify thesethings than to effect them, so that that position of the stars is,as it were, a kind of speech predicting, not causing future things,-for this has been the opinion of men of no ordinary learning,-certainly the mathematicians are not wont so to speak, saying,for example, Mars in such or such a position signifies a homicide, but makes a homicide. But, nevertheless, though wegrant that they do not speak as they ought, and that we oughtto accept as the proper form of speech that employed by thephilosophers in predicting those things which they think theydiscover in the position of the stars, how comes it that theyhave never been able to assign any cause why, in the life oftwins, in their actions, in the events which befall them, intheir professions, arts, honours, and other things pertaining tohuman life, also in their very death, there is often so great adifference, that, as far as these things are concerned, manyentire strangers are more like them than they are like eachother, though separated at birth by the smallest interval oftime, but at conception generated by the same act of copulation, and at the same moment?2. On the difference in the health oftwins.Cicero says that the famous physician Hippocrates has leftin writing that he had suspected that a certain pair of brotherswere twins, from the fact that they both took ill at once, andtheir disease advanced to its crisis and subsided in the sametime in each of them.¹ Posidonius the Stoic, who was muchgiven to astrology, used to explain the fact by supposing thatthey had been born and conceived under the same constellation. In this question the conjecture of the physician is by1 This fact is not recorded in any of the extant works of Hippocrates or Cicero.Vives supposes it may have found place in Cicero's book, De Fato.180 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK V.far more worthy to be accepted, and approaches much nearerto credibility, since, according as the parents were affected inbody at the time of copulation, so might the first elements ofthe fœtuses have been affected, so that all that was necessaryfor their growth and development up till birth having beensupplied from the body of the same mother, they might beborn with like constitutions. Thereafter, nourished in thesame house, on the same kinds of food, where they would havealso the same kinds of air, the same locality, the same qualityof water,—which, according to the testimony of medical science,have a very great influence, good or bad, on the condition ofbodily health, and where they would also be accustomed tothe same kinds of exercise, they would have bodily constitutions so similar that they would be similarly affected with sickness at the same time and by the same causes. But, to wishto adduce that particular position of the stars which existedat the time when they were born or conceived as the cause oftheir being simultaneously affected with sickness, manifests thegreatest arrogance, when so many beings of most diverse kinds,in the most diverse conditions, and subject to the most diverseevents, may have been conceived and born at the same time,and in the same district, lying under the same sky. But weknow that twins do not only act differently, and travel to verydifferent places, but that they also suffer from different kindsof sickness; for which Hippocrates would give what is in myopinion the simplest reason, namely, that, through diversityof food and exercise, which arises not from the constitution ofthe body, but from the inclination of the mind, they may havecome to be different from each other in respect of health.Moreover, Posidonius, or any other asserter of the fatal influence of the stars, will have enough to do to find anythingto say to this, if he be unwilling to impose upon the minds ofthe uninstructed in things of which they are ignorant. But,as to what they attempt to make out from that very smallinterval of time elapsing between the births of twins, on account of that point in the heavens where the mark of thenatal hour is placed, and which they call the " horoscope," itis either disproportionately small to the diversity which isfound in the dispositions, actions, habits, and fortunes of twins,BOOK V. ]ASTROLOGY AND TWINS. 181or it is disproportionately great when compared with the estateof twins, whether low or high, which is the same for both ofthem, the cause for whose greatest difference they place, inevery case, in the hour on which one is born; and, for thisreason, if the one is born so immediately after the other thatthere is no change in the horoscope, I demand an entire similarity in all that respects them both, which can never be foundin the case of any twins. But if the slowness of the birth ofthe second give time for a change in the horoscope, I demanddifferent parents, which twins can never have.3. Concerning the arguments which Nigidius the mathematician drewfromthe potter's wheel, in the question about the birth of twins.It is to no purpose, therefore, that that famous fiction aboutthe potter's wheel is brought forward, which tells of the answerwhich Nigidius is said to have given when he was perplexedwith this question, and on account of which he was calledFigulus. For, having whirled round the potter's wheel withall his strength, he marked it with ink, striking it twice withthe utmost rapidity, so that the strokes seemed to fall on thevery same part of it. Then, when the rotation had ceased,the marks which he had made were found upon the rim of thewheel at no small distance apart. Thus, said he, consideringthe great rapidity with which the celestial sphere revolves,even though twins were born with as short an interval betweentheir births as there was between the strokes which I gave thiswheel, that brief interval of time is equivalent to a very greatdistance in the celestial sphere. Hence, said he, come whatever dissimilitudes may be remarked in the habits and fortunesof twins. This argument is more fragile than the vesselswhich are fashioned by the rotation of that wheel. For ifthere is so much significance in the heavens which cannot becomprehended by observation of the constellations, that, in thecase of twins, an inheritance may fall to the one and not tothe other, why, in the case of others who are not twins, dothey dare, having examined their constellations, to declare suchthings as pertain to that secret which no one can comprehend,and to attribute them to the precise moment of the birth of eachindividual? Now, if such predictions in connection with the¹i.e. the potter.182 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK V.natal hours of others who are not twins are to be vindicated onthe ground that they are founded on the observation of more extended spaces in the heavens, whilst those very small momentsof time which separated the births of twins, and correspondto minute portions of celestial space, are to be connected withtrifling things about which the mathematicians are not wontto be consulted, —for who would consult them as to when he isto sit, when to walk abroad, when and on what he is to dine?-how can we be justified in so speaking, when we can pointout such manifold diversity both in the habits, doings, anddestinies of twins?4. Concerning the twins Esau and Jacob, who were very unlike each other both in their character and actions.In the time of the ancient fathers, to speak concerningillustrious persons, there were born two twin brothers, theone so immediately after the other, that the first took hold ofthe heel of the second. So great a difference existed in theirlives and manners, so great a dissimilarity in their actions, sogreat a difference in their parents' love for them respectively,that the very contrast between them produced even a mutualhostile antipathy. Do we mean, when we say that they wereso unlike each other, that when the one was walking the otherwas sitting, when the one was sleeping the other was waking,-which differences are such as are attributed to those minuteportions of space which cannot be appreciated by those whonote down the position of the stars which exists at the momentof one's birth, in order that the mathematicians may be consulted concerning it? One of these twins was for a long timea hired servant; the other never served. One of them wasbeloved by his mother; the other was not so. One of themlost that honour which was so much valued among theirpeople; the other obtained it. And what shall we say oftheir wives, their children, and their possessions? How different they were in respect to all these! If, therefore, suchthings as these are connected with those minute intervals oftime which elapse between the births of twins, and are not tobe attributed to the constellations, wherefore are they predictedin the case of others from the examination of their constellations? And if, on the other hand, these things are said to beBOOK V.]ASTROLOGY INCONSISTENT. 183predicted, because they are connected, not with minute andinappreciable moments, but with intervals of time which can beobserved and noted down, what purpose is that potter's wheelto serve in this matter, except it be to whirl round men whohave hearts of clay, in order that they may be prevented fromdetecting the emptiness of the talk of the mathematicians?5. In what manner the mathematicians are convicted ofprofessing a vain science.Do not those very person's whom the medical sagacity ofHippocrates led him to suspect to be twins, because theirdisease was observed by him to develope to its crisis and tosubside again in the same time in each of them, -do not these,I say, serve as a sufficient refutation of those who wish toattribute to the influence of the stars that which was owingto a similarity of bodily constitution? For wherefore werethey both sick of the same disease, and at the same time, andnot the one after the other in the order of their birth? (forcertainly they could not both be born at the same time.) Or,if the fact of their having been born at different times by nomeans necessarily implies that they must be sick at differenttimes, why do they contend that the difference in the time oftheir births was the cause of their difference in other things?Why could they travel in foreign parts at different times,marry at different times, beget children at different times, anddo many other things at different times, by reason of theirhaving been born at different times, and yet could not, forthe same reason, also be sick at different times? For if adifference in the moment of birth changed the horoscope, andoccasioned dissimilarity in all other things, why has thatsimultaneousness which belonged to their conception remainedin their attacks of sickness? Or, if the destinies of healthare involved in the time of conception, but those of otherthings be said to be attached to the time of birth, they oughtnot to predict anything concerning health from examinationof the constellations of birth, when the hour of conception isnot also given, that its constellations may be inspected. Butif they say that they predict attacks of sickness without examining the horoscope of conception, because these are indicated by the moments of birth, how could they inform either• 184 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK V.of these twins when he would be sick, from the horoscope ofhis birth, when the other also, who had not the same horoscopeof birth, must of necessity fall sick at the same time? Again,I ask, if the distance of time between the births of twins isso great as to occasion a difference of their constellations onaccount of the difference of their horoscopes, and therefore ofall the cardinal points to which so much influence is attributed,that even from such change there comes a difference of destiny,how is it possible that this should be so, since they cannothave been conceived at different times? Or, if two conceivedat the same moment of time could have different destinieswith respect to their births, why may not also two born atthe same moment of time have different destinies for life andfor death? For if the one moment in which both were conceived did not hinder that the one should be born before theother, why, if two are born at the same moment, should anything hinder them from dying at the same moment? If asimultaneous conception allows of twins being differentlyaffected in the womb, why should not simultaneousness ofbirth allow of any two individuals having different fortunesin the world? and thus would all the fictions of this art, orrather delusion, be swept away. What strange circumstanceis this, that two children conceived at the same time, nay, atthe same moment, under the same position of the stars, havedifferent fates which bring them to different hours of birth,whilst two children, born of two different mothers, at the samemoment of time, under one and the same position of the stars,cannot have different fates which shall conduct them by necessity to diverse manners of life and of death? Are they atconception as yet without destinies, because they can onlyhave them if they be born? What, therefore, do they meanwhen they say that, if the hour of the conception be found,many things can be predicted by these astrologers? fromwhich also arose that story which is reiterated by some, thata certain sage chose an hour in which to lie with his wife, inorder to secure his begetting an illustrious son. From thisopinion also came that answer of Posidonius, the great astrologer and also philosopher, concerning those twins who wereattacked with sickness at the same time, namely, " That thisBOOK V. ] TWINS OF DIFFERENT SEX. 185had happened to them because they were conceived at thesame time, and born at the same time." For certainly headded " conception, " lest it should be said to him that theycould not both be born at the same time, knowing that at anyrate they must both have been conceived at the same time;wishing thus to show that he did not attribute the fact oftheir being similarly and simultaneously affected with sicknessto the similarity of their bodily constitutions as its proximatecause, but that he held that even in respect of the similarityof their health, they were bound together by a sidereal connection. If, therefore, the time of conception has so much todo with the similarity of destinies, these same destinies oughtnot to be changed by the circumstances of birth; or, if thedestinies of twins be said to be changed because they areborn at different times, why should we not rather understandthat they had been already changed in order that they mightbe born at different times? Does not, then, the will of menliving in the world change the destinies of birth, when theorder of birth can change the destinies they had at conception?6. Concerning twins ofdifferent sexes.But even in the very conception of twins, which certainlyoccurs at the same moment in the case of both, it often happens that the one is conceived a male, and the other a female.I know two of different sexes who are twins. Both of themare alive, and in the flower of their age; and though theyresemble each other in body, as far as difference of sex willpermit, still they are very different in the whole scope andpurpose of their lives (consideration being had of those differences which necessarily exist between the lives of males andfemales) , the one holding the office of a count, and beingalmost constantly away from home with the army in foreignservice, the other never leaving her country's soil, or hernative district. Still more, and this is more incredible, if thedestinies of the stars are to be believed in, though it is notwonderful if we consider the wills of men, and the free giftsof God, —he is married; she is a sacred virgin: he has begottena numerous offspring; she has never even married. But isnot the virtue of the horoscope very great? I think I havesaid enough to show the absurdity of that. But, say those186 [BOOK V. THE CITY OF GOD.astrologers, whatever be the virtue of the horoscope in otherrespects, it is certainly of significance with respect to birth.But why not also with respect to conception, which takesplace undoubtedly with one act of copulation? And, indeed,so great is the force of nature, that after a woman has onceconceived, she ceases to be liable to conception. Or werethey, perhaps, changed at birth, either he into a male, or sheinto a female, because of the difference in their horoscopes?But, whilst it is not altogether absurd to say that certainsidereal influences have some power to cause differences inbodies alone, as, for instance, we see that the seasons of theyear come round by the approaching and receding of the sun,and that certain kinds of things are increased in size ordiminished by the waxings and wanings of the moon, suchas sea-urchins, oysters, and the wonderful tides of the ocean, —it does not follow that the wills of men are to be made subjectto the position of the stars. The astrologers, however, whenthey wish to bind our actions also to the constellations, onlyset us on investigating whether, even in these bodies, thechanges may not be attributable to some other than a siderealcause. For what is there which more intimately concerns abody than its sex? And yet, under the same position of thestars, twins of different sexes may be conceived. Wherefore,what greater absurdity can be affirmed or believed than thatthe position of the stars, which was the same for both of themat the time of conception, could not cause that the one childshould not have been of a different sex from her brother, withwhom she had a common constellation, whilst the position ofthe stars which existed at the hour of their birth could causethat she should be separated from him by the great distancebetween marriage and holy virginity?7. Concerning the choosing of a dayfor marriage, or for planting, or sowing.Now, will any one bring forward this, that in choosingcertain particular days for particular actions, men bring aboutcertain new destinies for their actions? That man, for instance,according to this doctrine, was not born to have an illustriousson, but rather a contemptible one, and therefore, being a manof learning, he chose an hour in which to lie with his wife.BOOK V. ]LUCKY DAYS. 187He made, therefore, a destiny which he did not have before,and from that destiny of his own making something began tobe fatal which was not contained in the destiny of his natalhour. Oh, singular stupidity! A day is chosen on which tomarry; and for this reason, I believe, that unless a day bechosen, the marriage may fall on an unlucky day, and turnout an unhappy one. What then becomes of what the starshave already decreed at the hour of birth? Can a man besaid to change by an act of choice that which has alreadybeen determined for him, whilst that which he himself hasdetermined in the choosing of a day cannot be changed byanother power? Thus, if men alone, and not all things underheaven, are subject to the influence of the stars, why do theychoose some days as suitable for planting vines or trees, or forsowing grain, other days as suitable for taming beasts on, orfor putting the males to the females, that the cows and maresmay be impregnated, and for such-like things? If it be saidthat certain chosen days have an influence on these things,because the constellations rule over all terrestrial bodies,animate and inanimate, according to differences in momentsof time, let it be considered what innumerable multitudes ofbeings are born or arise, or take their origin at the very sameinstant of time, which come to ends so different, that theymay persuade any little boy that these observations aboutdays are ridiculous. For who is so mad as to dare affirmthat all trees, all herbs, all beasts, serpents, birds, fishes,worms, have each separately their own moments of birth orcommencement? Nevertheless, men are wont, in order totry the skill of the mathematicians, to bring before them theconstellations of dumb animals, the constellations of whosebirth they diligently observe at home with a view to thisdiscovery; and they prefer those mathematicians to all others,who say from the inspection of the constellations that theyindicate the birth of a beast and not of a man. They alsodare tell what kind of beast it is, whether it is a wool- bearingbeast, or a beast suited for carrying burthens, or one fit forthe plough, or for watching a house; for the astrologers arealso tried with respect to the fates of dogs, and their answersconcerning these are followed by shouts of admiration on the188 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK V.part of those who consult them. They so deceive men as tomake them think that during the birth of a man the birthsof all other beings are suspended, so that not even a fly comesto life at the same time that he is being born, under the sameregion of the heavens. And if this be admitted with respectto the fly, the reasoning cannot stop there, but must ascendfrom flies till it lead them up to camels and elephants. Norare they willing to attend to this, that when a day has beenchosen whereon to sow a field, so many grains fall into theground simultaneously, germinate simultaneously, spring up,come to perfection, and ripen simultaneously; and yet, of allthe ears which are coeval, and, so to speak, congerminal, someare destroyed by mildew, some are devoured by the birds, andsome are pulled by men. How can they say that all thesehad their different constellations, which they see coming to sodifferent ends? Will they confess that it is folly to choosedays for such things, and to affirm that they do not comewithin the sphere of the celestial decree, whilst they subjectmen alone to the stars, on whom alone in the world God hasbestowed free wills? All these things being considered, wehave good reason to believe that, when the astrologers givevery many wonderful answers, it is to be attributed to theoccult inspiration of spirits not of the best kind, whose careit is to insinuate into the minds of men, and to confirm inthem, those false and noxious opinions concerning the fatalinfluence of the stars, and not to their marking and inspectingof horoscopes, according to some kind of art which in realityhas no existence.8. Concerning those who call by the name offate, not the position ofthe stars,but the connection of causes which depends on the will ofGod.But, as to those who call by the name of fate, not the disposition of the stars as it may exist when any creature isconceived, or born, or commences its existence, but the wholeconnection and train of causes which makes everything becomewhat it does become, there is no need that I should labourand strive with them in a merely verbal controversy, sincethey attribute the so-called order and connection of causes tothe will and power of God most high, who is most rightlyand most truly believed to know all things before they comeBOOK V. ]FATE. 189to pass, and to leave nothing unordained; from whom are allpowers, although the wills of all are not from Him. Now,that it is chiefly the will of God most high, whose powerextends itself irresistibly through all things which they callfate, is proved by the following verses, of which, if I mistakenot, Annæus Seneca is the author:-" Father supreme, Thou ruler of the lofty heavens,Lead me where'er it is Thy pleasure; I will giveA prompt obedience, making no delay,Lo! here I am. Promptly I come to do Thy sovereign will;If Thy command shall thwart my inclination , I will stillFollow Thee groaning, and the work assigned,With all the suffering of a mind repugnant,Will perform, being evil; which, had I been good,I should have undertaken and performed, though hard,With virtuous cheerfulness.The Fates do lead the man that follows willing;But the man that is unwilling, him they drag. 'Most evidently, in this last verse, he calls that " fate " whichhe had before called " the will of the Father supreme," whom,he says, he is ready to obey that he may be led, being willing,not dragged, being unwilling, since " the Fates do lead theman that follows willing, but the man that is unwilling, himthey drag."The following Homeric lines, which Cicero translates intoLatin, also favour this opinion:--" Such are the minds of men, as is the lightWhich Father Jove himself doth pourIllustrious o'er the fruitful earth. "2Not that Cicero wishes that a poetical sentiment shouldhave any weight in a question like this; for when he saysthat the Stoics, when asserting the power of fate, were in thehabit of using these verses from Homer, he is not treatingconcerning the opinion of that poet, but concerning that ofthose philosophers, since by these verses, which they quote inconnection with the controversy which they hold about fate,is most distinctly manifested what it is which they reckonfate, since they call by the name of Jupiter him whom theyreckon the supreme god, from whom, they say, hangs thewhole chain of fates.1 Epist. 107. * Odyssey, xviii. 136, 137.190 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK V.9. Concerning the foreknowledge of God and the free will ofman, in oppositionto the definition of Cicero.The manner in which Cicero addresses himself to the taskof refuting the Stoics, shows that he did not think he couldeffect anything against them in argument unless he had firstdemolished divination. And this he attempts to accomplishby denying that there is any knowledge of future things,and maintains with all his might that there is no such knowledge either in God or man, and that there is no predictionof events. Thus he both denies the foreknowledge of God,and attempts by vain arguments, and by opposing to himselfcertain oracles very easy to be refuted, to overthrow all prophecy, even such as is clearer than the light (though eventhese oracles are not refuted by him).But, in refuting these conjectures of the mathematicians, hisargument is triumphant, because truly these are such as destroyand refute themselves. Nevertheless, they are far more tolerable who assert the fatal influence of the stars than they whodeny the foreknowledge of future events. For, to confess thatGod exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly. ThisCicero himself saw, and therefore attempted to assert thedoctrine embodied in the words of Scripture, " The fool hathsaid in his heart, There is no God." 2 That, however, he didnot do in his own person, for he saw how odious and offensivesuch an opinion would be; and, therefore in his book on thenature of the gods, he makes Cotta dispute concerning thisagainst the Stoics, and preferred to give his own opinion infavour of Lucilius Balbus, to whom he assigned the defence ofthe Stoical position, rather than in favour of Cotta, who maintained that no divinity exists. However, in his book ondivination, he in his own person most openly opposes thedoctrine of the prescience of future things. But all this heseems to do in order that he may not grant the doctrine offate, and by so doing destroy free will. For he thinks that,the knowledge of future things being once conceded, fate follows as so necessary a consequence that it cannot be denied.But, let these perplexing debatings and disputations of the1 De Divinat. ii.32 Ps. xiv. 1. 3Book iii.BOOK V. ] FOREKNOWLEDGE AND FREE WILL. 191philosophers go on as they may, we, in order that we mayconfess the most high and true God Himself, do confess Hiswill, supreme power, and prescience. Neither let us be afraidlest, after all, we do not do by will that which we do by will,because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew thatwe would do it. It was this which Cicero was afraid of, andtherefore opposed foreknowledge. The Stoics also maintainedthat all things do not come to pass by necessity, althoughthey contended that all things happen according to destiny.What is it, then, that Cicero feared in the prescience of futurethings? Doubtless it was this, -that if all future thingshave been foreknown, they will happen in the order in whichthey have been foreknown; and if they come to pass in thisorder, there is a certain order of things foreknown by God;and if a certain order of things, then a certain order of causes,for nothing can happen which is not preceded by some efficientcause. But if there is a certain order of causes according towhich everything happens which does happen, then by fate,says he, all things happen which do happen. But if this beso, then is there nothing in our own power, and there is nosuch thing as freedom of will; and if we grant that, says he,the whole economy of human life is subverted. In vain arelaws enacted. In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings, exhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whateverin the appointment of rewards for the good, and punishmentsfor the wicked. And that consequences so disgraceful, andabsurd, and pernicious to humanity may not follow, Cicerochooses to reject the foreknowledge of future things, and shutsup the religious mind to this alternative, to make choice between two things, either that something is in our own power,or that there is foreknowledge, both of which cannot be true;but if the one is affirmed, the other is thereby denied.therefore, like a truly great and wise man, and one who consulted very much and very skilfully for the good of humanity,of those two chose the freedom of the will, to confirm whichhe denied the foreknowledge of future things; and thus, wishing to make men free, he makes them sacrilegious. But thereligious mind chooses both, confesses both, and maintainsboth by the faith of piety. But how so? says Cicero; for the192 [BOOK V. THE CITY OF GOD.knowledge of future things being granted, there follows a chainof consequences which ends in this, that there can be nothingdepending on our own free wills. And further, if there isanything depending on our wills, we must go backwards bythe same steps of reasoning till we arrive at the conclusionthat there is no foreknowledge of future things. For we gobackwards through all the steps in the following order:-If there is free will, all things do not happen according tofate; if all things do not happen according to fate, there isnot a certain order of causes; and if there is not a certainorder of causes, neither is there a certain order of things foreknown by God,-for things cannot come to pass except theyare preceded by efficient causes, -but, if there is no fixed andcertain order of causes foreknown by God, all things cannotbe said to happen according as He foreknew that they wouldhappen. And further, if it is not true that all things happenjust as they have been foreknown by Him, there is not, sayshe, in God any foreknowledge of future events.Now, against the sacrilegious and impious darings ofreason, we assert both that God knows all things beforethey come to pass, and that we do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us only becausewe will it. But that all things come to pass by fate, wedo not say; nay we affirm that nothing comes to pass byfate; for we demonstrate that the name of fate, as it is wontto be used by those who speak of fate, meaning thereby theposition of the stars at the time of each one's conceptionor birth, is an unmeaning word, for astrology itself is a delusion. But an order of causes in which the highest efficiencyis attributed to the will of God, we neither deny nor do wedesignate it by the name of fate, unless, perhaps, we mayunderstand fate to mean that which is spoken, deriving it fromfari, to speak; for we cannot deny that it is written in thesacred Scriptures, " God hath spoken once; these two thingshave I heard, that power belongeth unto God. Also untoThee, O God, belongeth mercy: for Thou wilt render untoevery man according to his works." Now the expression,"Once hath He spoken," is to be understood as meaning " im1 Ps. lxii. 11 , 12.BOOK V.] THE WILL AND CAUSES. 193movably," that is, unchangeably hath He spoken, inasmuch asHe knows unchangeably all things which shall be, and allthings which He will do. We might, then, use the word fatein the sense it bears when derived from fari, to speak, had itnot already come to be understood in another sense, into whichI am unwilling that the hearts of men should unconsciouslyslide. But it does not follow that, though there is for God acertain order of all causes, there must therefore be nothingdepending on the free exercise of our own wills, for our willsthemselves are included in that order of causes which is certainto God, and is embraced by His foreknowledge, for humanwills are also causes of human actions; and He who foreknewall the causes of things would certainly among those causesnot have been ignorant of our wills. For even that very concession which Cicero himself makes is enough to refute himin this argument. For what does it help him to say thatnothing takes place without a cause, but that every cause isnot fatal, there being a fortuitous cause, a natural cause, anda voluntary cause? It is sufficient that he confesses thatwhatever happens must be preceded by a cause.For we saythat those causes which are called fortuitous are not a merename for the absence of causes, but are only latent, and weattribute them either to the will of the true God, or to that ofspirits of some kind or other. And as to natural causes, we byno means separate them from the will of Him who is the authorand framer of all nature. But now as to voluntary causes.They are referable either to God, or to angels, or to men, or toanimals of whatever description, if indeed those instinctivemovements of animals devoid of reason, by which, in accordance with their own nature, they seek or shun various things,are to be called wills. And when I speak of the wills ofangels, I mean either the wills of good angels, whom we callthe angels of God, or of the wicked angels, whom we call theangels of the devil, or demons. Also by the wills of men Imean the wills either of the good or of the wicked. And fromthis we conclude that there are no efficient causes of all thingswhich come to pass unless voluntary causes, that is, such asbelong to that nature which is the spirit of life. For the airor wind is called spirit, but, inasmuch as it is a body, it is notVOL. I. N194 [BOOK V. THE CITY OF GOD.the spirit of life. The spirit of life, therefore, which quickensall things, and is the creator of every body, and of every'created spirit, is God Himself, the uncreated spirit. In Hissupreme will resides the power which acts on the wills of allcreated spirits, helping the good, judging the evil, controllingall, granting power to some, not granting it to others. For,as He is the creator of all natures, so also is He the bestowerof all powers, not of all wills; for wicked wills are not fromHim, being contrary to nature, which is from Him. As tobodies, they are more subject to wills: some to our wills, bywhich I mean the wills of all living mortal creatures, butmore to the wills of men than of beasts. But all of them aremost of all subject to the will of God, to whom all wills alsoare subject, since they have no power except what He hasbestowed upon them. The cause of things, therefore, whichmakes but is not made, is God; but all other causes bothmake and are made. Such are all created spirits, and especiallythe rational. Material causes, therefore, which may ratherbe said to be made than to make, are not to be reckonedamong efficient causes, because they can only do what thewills of spirits do by them. How, then, does an order ofcauses which is certain to the foreknowledge of God necessitatethat there should be nothing which is dependent on our wills,when our wills themselves have a very important place in theorder of causes? Cicero, then, contends with those who callthis order of causes fatal, or rather designate this order itselfby the name of fate; to which we have an abhorrence, especially on account of the word, which men have become accustomed to understand as meaning what is not true.whereas he denies that the order of all causes is most certain,and perfectly clear to the prescience of God, we detest hisopinion more than the Stoics do. For he either denies thatGod exists, which, indeed, in an assumed personage, he haslaboured to do, in his book De Natura Deorum, or if heconfesses that He exists, but denies that He is prescient offuture things, what is that but just "the fool saying in hisheart there is no God?" For one who is not prescient of allfuture things is not God. Wherefore our wills also have justso much power as God willed and foreknew that they shouldBut,BOOK V. ] THE WILL AND NECESSITY. 195have; and therefore whatever power they have, they have itwithin most certain limits; and whatever they are to do, theyare most assuredly to do, for He whose foreknowledge is infallible foreknew that they would have the power to do it,and would do it. Wherefore, if I should choose to apply thename of fate to anything at all, I should rather say that fatebelongs to the weaker of two parties, will to the stronger, whohas the other in his power, than that the freedom of our willis excluded by that order of causes, which, by an unusualapplication of the word peculiar to themselves, the Stoics callFate.10. Whether our wills are ruled by necessity.Wherefore, neither is that necessity to be feared, for dreadof which the Stoics laboured to make such distinctions amongthe causes of things as should enable them to rescue certainthings from the dominion of necessity, and to subject others toit. Among those things which they wished not to be subjectto necessity they placed our wills, knowing that they wouldnot be free if subjected to necessity. For if that is to becalled our necessity which is not in our power, but even thoughwe be unwilling effects what it can effect,-as, for instance, thenecessity of death, it is manifest that our wills by which welive uprightly or wickedly are not under such a necessity;for we do many things which, if we were not willing, we shouldcertainly not do. This is primarily true of the act of willingitself, for if we will, it is; if we will not, it is not, -for weshould not will if we were unwilling. But if we define necessity to be that according to which we say that it is necessarythat anything be of such or such a nature, or be done in such andsuch a manner, I know not why we should have any dread ofthat necessity taking away the freedom of our will. For wedo not put the life of God or the foreknowledge of God undernecessity if we should say that it is necessary that God shouldlive for ever, and foreknow all things; as neither is His powerdiminished when we say that He cannot die or fall into error, —for this is in such a way impossible to Him, that if it werepossible for Him, He would be of less power. But assuredlyHe is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither dienor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account196 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK V. .of His doing what He wills, not on account of His sufferingwhat He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would byno means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do somethings for the very reason that He is omnipotent. So also,when we say that it is necessary that, when we will, we willby free choice, in so saying we both affirm what is true beyonddoubt, and do not still subject our wills thereby to a necessitywhich destroys liberty. Our wills, therefore, exist as wills, anddo themselves whatever we do by willing, and which wouldnot be done if we were unwilling. But when any one suffersanything, being unwilling, by the will of another, even in thatcase will retains its essential validity, we do not mean thewill of the party who inflicts the suffering, for we resolve itinto the power of God. For if a will should simply exist, butnot be able to do what it wills, it would be overborne by amore powerful will. Nor would this be the case unless therehad existed will, and that not the will of the other party, butthe will of him who willed, but was not able to accomplishwhat he willed. Therefore, whatsoever a man suffers contraryto his own will, he ought not to attribute to the will of men,or of angels, or of any created spirit, but rather to His willwho gives power to wills. It is not the case, therefore, thatbecause God foreknew what would be in the power of ourwills, there is for that reason nothing in the power of ourwills. For he who foreknew this did not foreknow nothing.Moreover, if He who foreknew what would be in the power ofour wills did not foreknow nothing, but something, assuredly,even though He did foreknow, there is something in the powerof our wills. Therefore we are by no means compelled, either,retaining the prescience of God, to take away the freedom ofthe will, or, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny that Heis prescient of future things, which is impious. But we embrace both. We faithfully and sincerely confess both. Theformer, that we may believe well; the latter, that we may livewell. For he lives ill who does not believe well concerningGod. Wherefore, be it far from us, in order to maintain ourfreedom, to deny the prescience of Him by whose help we areor shall be free. Consequently, it is not in vain that laws areenacted, and that reproaches, exhortations, praises, and vitu-BOOK V. ] UNIVERSAL PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 197perations are had recourse to; for these also He foreknew, andthey are of great avail, even as great as He foreknew that theywould be of. Prayers, also, are of avail to procure those thingswhich He foreknew that He would grant to those who offeredthem; and with justice have rewards been appointed for gooddeeds, and punishments for sins. For a man does not therefore sin because God foreknew that he would sin. Nay, itcannot be doubted but that it is the man himself who sinswhen he does sin, because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew not that fate, or fortune, or something elsewould sin, but that the man himself would sin, who, if hewills not, sins not. But if he shall not will to sin, even thisdid God foreknow.11. Concerning the universal providence of God in the laws ofwhich all thingsare comprehended.Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and HolySpirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent, creator andmaker of every soul and of every body; by whose gift all arehappy who are happy through verity and not through vanity;who made man a rational animal consisting of soul and body,who, when he sinned, neither permitted him to go unpunished,nor left him without mercy; who has given to the good andto the evil, being in common with stones, vegetable life incommon with trees, sensuous life in common with brutes,intellectual life in common with angels alone; from whomis every mode, every species, every order; from whom aremeasure, number, weight; from whom is everything whichhas an existence in nature, of whatever kind it be, and ofwhatever value; from whom are the seeds of forms and theforms of seeds, and the motion of seeds and of forms; whogave also to flesh its origin, beauty, health, reproductivefecundity, disposition of members, and the salutary concord ofits parts; who also to the irrational soul has given memory,sense, appetite, but to the rational soul, in addition to these,has given intelligence and will; who has not left, not to speakof heaven and earth, angels and men, but not even the entrails.of the smallest and most contemptible animal, or the featherof a bird, or the little flower of a plant, or the leaf of a tree,without an harmony, and, as it were, a mutual peace among198 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK V.all its parts; that God can never be believed to have leftthe kingdoms of men, their dominations and servitudes, outsideof the laws of His providence.12. By what virtues the ancient Romans merited that the true God, although theydid not worship Him, should enlarge their empire.Wherefore let us go on to consider what virtues of theRomans they were which the true God, in whose power arealso the kingdoms of the earth, condescended to help inorder to raise the empire, and also for what reason He did so.And, in order to discuss this question on clearer ground, wehave written the former books, to show that the power ofthose gods, who, they thought, were to be worshipped withsuch trifling and silly rites, had nothing to do in this matter;and also what we have already accomplished of the presentvolume, to refute the doctrine of fate, lest any one who mighthave been already persuaded that the Roman empire was notextended and preserved by the worship of these gods, mightstill be attributing its extension and preservation to some kindof fate, rather than to the most powerful will of God mosthigh. The ancient and primitive Romans, therefore, thoughtheir history shows us that, like all the other nations, withthe sole exception of the Hebrews, they worshipped false gods,and sacrificed victims, not to God, but to demons, have nevertheless this commendation bestowed on them by their historian,that they were " greedy of praise, prodigal of wealth, desirousof great glory, and content with a moderate fortune." Glorythey most ardently loved: for it they wished to live, for itthey did not hesitate to die. Every other desire was repressedby the strength of their passion for that one thing. At lengththeir country itself, because it seemed inglorious to serve, butglorious to rule and to command, they first earnestly desiredto be free, and then to be mistress. Hence it was that, notenduring the domination of kings, they put the governmentinto the hands of two chiefs, holding office for a year, whowere called consuls, not kings or lords.2 But royal pomp1 Sallust, Cat. vii." 12 Augustine notes that the name consul is derived from consulere, and thussignifies a more benign rule than that of a rex (from regere), or dominus (fromdominari).BOOK V. ] THE ROMAN VIRTUES. 199seemed inconsistent with the administration of a ruler (regentis), or the benevolence of one who consults (that is, for thepublic good) (consulentis), but rather with the haughtiness ofa lord (dominantis). King Tarquin, therefore, having beenbanished, and the consular government having been instituted,it followed, as the same author already alluded to says in hispraises of the Romans, that " the state grew with amazingrapidity after it had obtained liberty, so great a desire ofglory had taken possession of it." That eagerness for praiseand desire of glory, then, was that which accomplished thosemany wonderful things, laudable, doubtless, and glorious according to human judgment. The same Sallust praises thegreat men of his own time, Marcus Cato, and Caius Cæsar,saying that for a long time the republic had no one great invirtue, but that within his memory there had been these twomen of eminent virtue, and very different pursuits. Now,among the praises which he pronounces on Cæsar he putthis, that he wished for a great empire, an army, and a newwar, that he might have a sphere where his genius and virtuemight shine forth. Thus it was ever the prayer of men ofheroic character that Bellona would excite miserable nationsto war, and lash them into agitation with her bloody scourge,so that there might be occasion for the display of theirvalour. This, forsooth, is what that desire of praise andthirst for glory did. Wherefore, by the love of liberty in thefirst place, afterwards also by that of domination and throughthe desire of praise and glory, they achieved many great things;and their most eminent poet testifies to their having beenprompted by all these motives:"Porsenna there, with pride elate,At that time itBids Rome to Tarquin ope her gate;With arms he hems the city in,Eneas' sons stand firm to win. "was their greatest ambition either to diebravely or to live free; but when liberty was obtained, sogreat a desire of glory took possession of them, that libertyalone was not enough unless domination also should be sought,1 Eneid, viii. 646.200 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK V.their great ambition being that which the same poet puts intothe mouth of Jupiter:" Nay, Juno's self, whose wild alarmsSet ocean, earth, and heaven in arms,Shall change for smiles her moody frown,And vie with me in zeal to crownRome's sons, the nation of the gown.So stands my will. There comes a day,While Rome's great ages hold their way,When old Assaracus's sonsShall quit them on the myrmidons,O'er Phthia and Mycena reign,And humble Argos to their chain. "1Which things, indeed, Virgil makes Jupiter predict as future,whilst, in reality, he was only himself passing in review in hisown mind things which were already done, and which werebeheld by him as present realities. But I have mentionedthem with the intention of showing that, next to liberty, theRomans so highly esteemed domination, that it received aplace among those things on which they bestowed the greatestpraise. Hence also it is that that poet, preferring to the artsof other nations those arts which peculiarly belong to theRomans, namely, the arts of ruling and commanding, and ofsubjugating and vanquishing nations, says,"Others, belike, with happier grace,From bronze or stone shall call the face,Plead doubtful causes, map the skies,And tell when planets set or rise;But Roman thou, do thou controlThe nations far and wide;Be this thy genius, to imposeThe rule of peace on vanquished foes,Show pity to the humbled soul," 2And crush the sons of pride. "These arts they exercised with the more skill the less theygave themselves up to pleasures, and to enervation of bodyand mind in coveting and amassing riches, and through thesecorrupting morals, by extorting them from the miserablecitizens and lavishing them on base stage-players. Hencethese men of base character, who abounded when Sallustwrote and Virgil sang these things, did not seek after honours2 Ibid. vi. 847.1¹ Æneid, i. 279.BOOK V. ] ROMAN THIRST FOR GLORY. 201and glory by these arts, but by treachery and deceit. Wherefore the same says, " But at first it was rather ambition thanavarice that stirred the minds of men, which vice, however, isnearer to virtue. For glory, honour, and power are desiredalike by the good man and by the ignoble; but the former,"he says, " strives onward to them by the true way, whilstthe other, knowing nothing of the good arts, seeks themby fraud and deceit." ¹ And what is meant by seeking theattainment of glory, honour, and power by good arts, is to seekthem by virtue, and not by deceitful intrigue; for the goodand the ignoble man alike desire these things, but the goodman strives to overtake them by the true way. The way isvirtue, along which he presses as to the goal of possessionnamely, to glory, honour, and power. Now that this was asentiment engrained in the Roman mind, is indicated evenby the temples of their gods; for they built in very closeproximity the temples of Virtue and Honour, worshippingas gods the gifts of God. Hence we can understand whatthey who were good thought to be the end of virtue, and towhat they ultimately referred it, namely, to honour; for, asto the bad, they had no virtue though they desired honour,and strove to possess it by fraud and deceit. Praise of ahigher kind is bestowed upon Cato, for he says of him," The less he sought glory, the more it followed him." Wesay praise of a higher kind; for the glory with the desire.of which the Romans burned is the judgment of men thinking well of men. And therefore virtue is better, which iscontent with no human judgment save that of one's own conscience. Whence the apostle says, " For this is our glory,the testimony of our conscience." And in another place hesays, “ But let every one prove his own work, and then heshall have glory in himself, and not in another." That glory,honour, and power, therefore, which they desired for themselves, and to which the good sought to attain by good arts,should not be sought after by virtue, but virtue by them.For there is no true virtue except that which is directedtowards that end in which is the highest and ultimate good1 Sallust, in Cat. c. xi.32 Cor. i. 12.Sallust, in Cat. c. 54.4 Gal. vi. 4.202 THE [BOOK V. CITY OF GOD.•of man. Wherefore even the honours which Cato sought heought not to have sought, but the state ought to have conferred them on him unsolicited, on account of his virtues.But, of the two great Romans of that time, Cato was hewhose virtue was by far the nearest to the true idea of virtue.Wherefore, let us refer to the opinion of Cato himself, to discover what was the judgment he had formed concerning thecondition of the state both then and in former times. " I donot think," he says, " that it was by arms that our ancestorsmade the republic great from being small. Had that been thecase, the republic of our day would have been by far moreflourishing than that of their times, for the number of ourallies and citizens is far greater; and, besides, we possess afar greater abundance of armour and of horses than they did.But it was other things than these that made them great, andwe have none of them: industry at home, just governmentwithout, a mind free in deliberation, addicted neither to crime.nor to lust. Instead of these, we have luxury and avarice,poverty in the state, opulence among citizens; we laud riches,we follow laziness; there is no difference made between thegood and the bad; all the rewards of virtue are got possessionof by intrigue. And no wonder, when every individual consults only for his own good, when ye are the slaves of pleasureat home, and, in public affairs, of money and favour, no wonderthat an onslaught is made upon the unprotected republic." ¹He who hears these words of Cato or of Sallust probablythinks that such praise bestowed on the ancient Romans wasapplicable to all of them, or, at least, to very many of them.It is not so; otherwise the things which Cato himself writes,and which I have quoted in the second book of this work,would not be true. In that passage he says, that even fromthe very beginning of the state wrongs were committed bythe more powerful, which led to the separation of the peoplefrom the fathers, besides which there were other internal dissensions; and the only time at which there existed a just andmoderate administration was after the banishment of the kings,and that no longer than whilst they had cause to be afraid ofTarquin, and were carrying on the grievous war which had1 Sallust, in Cat. c. 52.BOOK V. ] CAUSES OF THE ROMAN POWER. 203been undertaken on his account against Etruria; but afterwards the fathers oppressed the people as slaves, flogged themas the kings had done, drove them from their land, and, tothe exclusion of all others, held the government in their ownhands alone. And to these discords, whilst the fathers werewishing to rule, and the people were unwilling to serve, thesecond Punic war put an end; for again great fear began topress upon their disquieted minds, holding them back fromthose distractions by another and greater anxiety, and bringing them back to civil concord. But the great things whichwere then achieved were accomplished through the administration of a few men, who were good in their own way. Andby the wisdom and forethought of these few good men, whichfirst enabled the republic to endure these evils and mitigatedthem, it waxed greater and greater. And this the same historian affirms, when he says that, reading and hearing of themany illustrious achievements of the Roman people in peaceand in war, by land and by sea, he wished to understand whatit was by which these great things were specially sustained.For he knew that very often the Romans had with a smallcompany contended with great legions of the enemy; and heknew also that with small resources they had carried on warswith opulent kings. And he says that, after having giventhe matter much consideration, it seemed evident to him thatthe pre-eminent virtue of a few citizens had achieved thewhole, and that that explained how poverty overcame wealth,and small numbers great multitudes. But, he adds, after thatthe state had been corrupted by luxury and indolence, againthe republic, by its own greatness, was able to bear the vicesof its magistrates and generals. Wherefore even the praisesof Cato are only applicable to a few; for only a few werepossessed of that virtue which leads men to pursue afterglory, honour, and power by the true way, that is, by virtueitself. This industry at home, of which Cato speaks, was theconsequence of a desire to enrich the public treasury, eventhough the result should be poverty at home; and therefore,when he speaks of the evil arising out of the corruption ofmorals, he reverses the expression, and says, " Poverty in thestate, riches at home."204 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK V.13. Concerning the love ofpraise, which, though it is a vice, is reckoned a virtue,because by it greater vice is restrained.Wherefore, when the kingdoms of the East had been illustrious for a long time, it pleased God that there should alsoarise a Western empire, which, though later in time, shouldbe more illustrious in extent and greatness. And, in orderthat it might overcome the grievous evils which existed amongother nations, He purposely granted it to such men as, for thesake of honour, and praise, and glory, consulted well for theircountry, in whose glory they sought their own, and whosesafety they did not hesitate to prefer to their own, suppressingthe desire of wealth and many other vices for this one vice,namely, the love of praise. For he has the soundest perception who recognises that even the love of praise is a vice;nor has this escaped the perception of the poet Horace, whosays,"You're bloated by ambition? take advice:Yon book will ease you if you read it thrice. """1And the same poet, in a lyric song, hath thus spoken withthe desire of repressing the passion for domination:" Rule an ambitious spirit, and thou hastA wider kingdom than if thou shouldst join To distant Gades Lybia, and thusShouldst hold in service either Carthaginian. "?Nevertheless, they who restrain baser lusts, not by thepower of the Holy Spirit obtained by the faith of piety,or by the love of intelligible beauty, but by desire of humanpraise, or, at all events, restrain them better by the love ofsuch praise, are not indeed yet holy, but only less base.Even Tully was not able to conceal this fact; for, in thesame books which he wrote, De Republica, when speakingconcerning the education of a chief of the state, who ought,he says, to be nourished on glory, goes on to say that theirancestors did many wonderful and illustrious things throughdesire of glory. So far, therefore, from resisting this vice, theyeven thought that it ought to be excited and kindled up, supposing that that would be beneficial to the republic. But noteven in his books on philosophy does Tully dissimulate this1 Horace, Epist. i. 1. 36, 37. 2 Hor. Carm. ii. 2.BOOK V.]LOVE OF PRAISE. 205poisonous opinion, for he there avows it more clearly thanday. For when he is speaking of those studies which are tobe pursued with a view to the true good, and not with thevainglorious desire of human praise, he introduces the following universal and general statement:"Honour nourishes the arts, and all are stimulated to the prosecution ofstudies by glory; and those pursuits are always neglected which are generally discredited. "114. Concerning the eradication ofthe love ofhuman praise, because all the gloryofthe righteous is in God.It is, therefore, doubtless far better to resist this desirethan to yield to it, for the purer one is from this defilement, the liker is he to God; and, though this vice be notthoroughly eradicated from his heart, for it does not cease totempt even the minds of those who are making good progressin virtue,—at any rate, let the desire of glory be surpassed bythe love of righteousness, so that, if there be seen anywhere"lying neglected things which are generally discredited," ifthey are good, if they are right, even the love of humanpraise may blush and yield to the love of truth. For sohostile is this vice to pious faith, if the love of glory begreater in the heart than the fear or love of God, that theLord said, " How can ye believe, who look for glory from oneanother, and do not seek the glory which is from God alone?"2Also, concerning some who had believed on Him, but wereafraid to confess Him openly, the evangelist says, " They lovedthe praise of men more than the praise of God;" which didnot the holy apostles, who, when they proclaimed the nameof Christ in those places where it was not only discredited,and therefore neglected, according as Cicero says, " Thosethings are always neglected which are generally discredited,"-but was even held in the utmost detestation, holding towhat they had heard from the Good Master, who was alsothe physician of minds, " If any one shall deny me beforemen, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven,and before the angels of God," amidst maledictions andreproaches, and most grievous persecutions and cruel punish1 Tusc. Quæst. i. 2.3 John xii. 43.2 John v. 44.4 Matt. x. 33.206 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK V." 1ments, were not deterred from the preaching of human salvation by the noise of human indignation. And when, as theydid and spake divine things, and lived divine lives, conquering,as it were, hard hearts, and introducing into them the peaceof righteousness, great glory followed them in the churchof Christ, they did not rest in that as in the end of theirvirtue, but, referring that glory itself to the glory of God, bywhose grace they were what they were, they sought to kindle,also by that same flame, the minds of those for whose goodthey consulted, to the love of Him, by whom they could bemade to be what they themselves were. For their Master hadtaught them not to seek to be good for the sake of humanglory, saying, " Take heed that ye do not your righteousnessbefore men to be seen of them, or otherwise ye shall nothave a reward from your Father who is in heaven." Butagain, lest, understanding this wrongly, they should, throughfear of pleasing men, be less useful through concealing theirgoodness, showing for what end they ought to make it known,He says, " Let your works shine before men, that they maysee your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is inheaven." " Not, observe, " that ye may be seen by them, thatis, in order that their eyes may be directed upon you," -forof yourselves ye are nothing, but " that they may glorifyyour Father who is in heaven," by fixing their regards onwhom they may become such as ye are. These the martyrsfollowed, who surpassed the Scævolas, and the Curtiuses, andthe Deciuses, both in true virtue, because in true piety,and also in the greatness of their number. But since thoseRomans were in an earthly city, and had before them, asthe end of all the offices undertaken in its behalf, its safety,and a kingdom, not in heaven, but in earth, —not in the sphereof eternal life, but in the sphere of demise and succession,where the dead are succeeded by the dying,-what else butglory should they love, by which they wished even afterdeath to live in the mouths of their admirers?15. Concerning the temporal reward which God granted to the virtues ofthe Romans.Now, therefore, with regard to those to whom God did not1 Matt. vi. 1.2 Matt. v. 16.BOOK V. ] ROMANS AN EXAMPLE TO CHRISTIANS. 207purpose to give eternal life with His holy angels in His own.celestial city, to the society of which that true piety whichdoes not render the service of religion, which the Greeks callXaTpeía, to any save the true God conducts, if He had alsowithheld from them the terrestrial glory of that most excellentempire, a reward would not have been rendered to their goodarts, that is, their virtues, -by which they sought to attainso great glory. For as to those who seem to do some goodthat they may receive glory from men, the Lord also says,"Verily I say unto you, they have received their reward." 1So also these despised their own private affairs for the sakeof the republic, and for its treasury resisted avarice, consultedfor the good of their country with a spirit of freedom, addictedneither to what their laws pronounced to be crime nor to lust.By all these acts, as by the true way, they pressed forward tohonours, power, and glory; they were honoured among almostall nations; they imposed the laws of their empire upon manynations; and at this day, both in literature and history, theyare glorious among almost all nations. There is no reason whythey should complain against the justice of the supreme andtrue God, " they have received their reward."16. Concerning the reward ofthe holy citizens of the celestial city, to whom theexample ofthe virtues of the Roman are useful.But the reward of the saints is far different, who evenhere endured reproaches for that city of God which is hateful to the lovers of this world. That city is eternal. Therenone are born, for none die. There is true and full felicity,-not a goddess, but a gift of God. Thence we receive thepledge of faith, whilst on our pilgrimage we sigh for itsbeauty. There rises not the sun on the good and the evil, butthe Sun of Righteousness protects the good alone. There nogreat industry shall be expended to enrich the public treasuryby suffering privations at home, for there is the commontreasury of truth. And, therefore, it was not only for thesake of recompensing the citizens of Rome that her empireand glory had been so signally extended, but also that thecitizens of that eternal city, during their pilgrimage here,might diligently and soberly contemplate these examples, and¹ Matt. vi. 2.208 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK V.see what a love they owe to the supernal country on accountof life eternal, if the terrestrial country was so much belovedby its citizens on account of human glory.17. To what profit the Romans carried on wars, and how much they contributedto the well-being of those whom they conquered.For, as far as this life of mortals is concerned, which isspent and ended in a few days, what does it matter underwhose government a dying man lives, if they who govern donot force him to impiety and iniquity? Did the Romans atall harm those nations, on whom, when subjugated, they imposed their laws, except in as far as that was accomplishedwith great slaughter in war? Now, had it been done withconsent of the nations, it would have been done with greatersuccess, but there would have been no glory of conquest, forneither did the Romans themselves live exempt from thoselaws which they imposed on others. Had this been donewithout Mars and Bellona, so that there should have been noplace for victory, no one conquering where no one had fought,would not the condition of the Romans and of the othernations have been one and the same, especially if that had beendone at once which afterwards was done most humanely andmost acceptably, namely, the admission of all to the rights ofRoman citizens who belonged to the Roman empire, and ifthat had been made the privilege of all which was formerlythe privilege of a few, with this one condition, that thehumbler class who had no lands of their own should live atthe public expense-an alimentary impost, which would havebeen paid with a much better grace by them into the handsof good administrators of the republic, of which they weremembers, by their own hearty consent, than it would havebeen paid with had it to be extorted from them as conqueredmen? For I do not see what it makes for the safety, goodmorals, and certainly not for the dignity, of men, that somehave conquered and others have been conquered, except thatit yields them that most insane pomp of human glory, inwhich " they have received their reward," who burned withexcessive desire of it, and carried on most eager wars. Fordo not their lands pay tribute? Have they any privilege oflearning what the others are not privileged to learn? AreBOOK V. ] ROMAN PATRIOTISM. 209there not many senators in the other countries who do noteven know Rome by sight? Take away outward show,' andwhat are all men after all but men? But even though theperversity of the age should permit that all the better menshould be more highly honoured than others, neither thusshould human honour be held at a great price, for it is smokewhich has no weight. But let us avail ourselves even inthese things of the kindness of God. Let us consider howgreat things they despised, how great things they endured,what lusts they subdued for the sake of human glory, whomerited that glory, as it were, in reward for such virtues; andlet this be useful to us even in suppressing pride, so that, asthat city in which it has been promised us to reign as farsurpasses this one as heaven is distant from the earth, aseternal life surpasses temporal joy, solid glory empty praise,or the society of angels the society of mortals, or the glory ofHim who made the sun and moon the light of the sun andmoon, the citizens of so great a country may not seem tothemselves to have done anything very great, if, in order toobtain it, they have done some good works or endured someevils, when those men for this terrestrial country already obtained, did such great things, suffered such great things. Andespecially are all these things to be considered, because theremission of sins which collects citizens to the celestial countryhas something in it to which a shadowy resemblance is foundin that asylum of Romulus, whither escape from the punishment of all manner of crimes congregated that multitude withwhich the state was to be founded.18. How far Christians ought to be from boasting, if they have done anythingfor the love of the eternal country, when the Romans did such greatthings for human glory and a terrestrial city.What great thing, therefore, is it for that eternal and celestialcity to despise all the charms of this world, however pleasant,if for the sake of this terrestrial city Brutus could even putto death his son,—a sacrifice which the heavenly city compelsno one to make? But certainly it is more difficult to put todeath one's sons, than to do what is required to be done forthe heavenly country, even to distribute to the poor those1 Jactantia.VOL. I.210 [BOOK V. THE CITY OF GOD.things which were looked upon as things to be amassed andlaid up for one's children, or to let them go, if there arise anytemptation which compels us to do so, for the sake of faith andrighteousness. For it is not earthly riches which make us orour sons happy; for they must either be lost by us in our lifetime, or be possessed when we are dead, by whom we know not,or perhaps by whom we would not. But it is God who makesus happy, who is the true riches of minds. But of Brutus,even the poet who celebrates his praises testifies that it wasthe occasion of unhappiness to him that he slew his son, forhe says," And call his own rebellious seedFor menaced liberty to bleed.Unhappy father! howsoe'erThe deed be judged by after days. "But in the following verse he consoles him in his unhappiness,saying,"His country's love shall all o'erbear. "There are those two things, namely, liberty and the desireof human praise, which compelled the Romans to admirabledeeds. If, therefore, for the liberty of dying men, and forthe desire of human praise which is sought after by mortals,sons could be put to death by a father, what great thing is it,if, for the true liberty which has made us free from the dominion of sin, and death, and the devil,-not through the desireof human praise, but through the earnest desire of freeing men,not from King Tarquin, but from demons and the prince ofthe demons, we should, I do not say put to death our sons,but reckon among our sons Christ's poor ones? If, also,another Roman chief, surnamed Torquatus, slew his son, notbecause he fought against his country, but because, beingchallenged by an enemy, he through youthful impetuosityfought, though for his country, yet contrary to orders whichhe his father had given as general; and this he did, notwithstanding that his son was victorious, lest there should be moreevil in the example of authority despised, than good in theglory of slaying an enemy;-if, I say, Torquatus acted thus,wherefore should they boast themselves, who, for the laws ofa celestial country, despise all earthly good things, which are1 Eneid, vi. 820.BOOK V. ] ROMAN EXAMPLES. 211loved far less than sons? If Furius Camillus, who was condemned by those who envied him, notwithstanding that hehad thrown off from the necks of his countrymen the yoke oftheir most bitter enemies, the Veientes, again delivered hisungrateful country from the Gauls, because he had no otherin which he could have better opportunities for living a lifeof glory;-if Camillus did thus, why should he be extolled ashaving done some great thing, who, having, it may be, sufferedin the church at the hands of carnal enemies most grievousand dishonouring injury, has not betaken himself to hereticalenemies, or himself raised some heresy against her, but hasrather defended her, as far as he was able, from the most pernicious perversity of heretics, since there is not another church,I say not in which one can live a life of glory, but in whicheternal life can be obtained? If Mucius, in order that peacemight be made with King Porsenna, who was pressing theRomans with a most grievous war, when he did not succeed.in slaying Porsenna, but slew another by mistake for him,reached forth his right hand and laid it on a red-hot altar,saying that many such as he saw him to be had conspired forhis destruction, so that Porsenna, terrified at his daring, and atthe thought of a conspiracy of such as he, without any delayrecalled all his warlike purposes, and made peace;-if, I say,Mucius did this, who shall speak of his meritorious claims tothe kingdom of heaven, if for it he may have given to the flamesnot one hand, but even his whole body, and that not by his ownspontaneous act, but because he was persecuted by another?If Curtius, spurring on his steed, threw himself all armedinto a precipitous gulf, obeying the oracles of their gods,which had commanded that the Romans should throw intothat gulf the best thing which they possessed, and they couldonly understand thereby that, since they excelled in men andarms, the gods had commanded that an armed man should becast headlong into that destruction; -if he did this, shall wesay that that man has done a great thing for the eternal citywho may have died by a like death, not, however, precipitatinghimself spontaneously into a gulf, but having suffered thisdeath at the hands of some enemy of his faith, more especially when he has received from his Lord, who is also King of212 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK V.his country, a more certain oracle, " Fear not them who killthe body, but cannot kill the soul? "1 If the Decii dedicatedthemselves to death, consecrating themselves in a form ofwords, as it were, that falling, and pacifying by their bloodthe wrath of the gods, they might be the means of deliveringthe Roman army;-if they did this, let not the holy martyrscarry themselves proudly, as though they had done some meritorious thing for a share in that country where are eternal lifeand felicity, if even to the shedding of their blood, loving notonly the brethren for whom it was shed, but, according as hadbeen commanded them, even their enemies by whom it wasbeing shed, they have vied with one another in faith of loveand love of faith. If Marcus Pulvillus, when engaged indedicating a temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, receivedwith such indifference the false intelligence which was broughtto him of the death of his son, with the intention of so agitating him that he should go away, and thus the glory of dedicating the temple should fall to his colleague; -if he receivedthat intelligence with such indifference that he even orderedthat his son should be cast out unburied, the love of gloryhaving overcome in his heart the grief of bereavement, howshall any one affirm that he has done a great thing for thepreaching of the gospel, by which the citizens of the heavenlycity are delivered from divers errors, and gathered togetherfrom divers wanderings, to whom his Lord has said, whenanxious about the burial of his father, " Follow me, and letthe dead bury their dead?" Regulus, in order not to breakhis oath, even with his most cruel enemies, returned to themfrom Rome itself, because (as he is said to have replied to theRomans when they wished to retain him) he could not havethe dignity of an honourable citizen at Rome after having beena slave to the Africans, and the Carthaginians put him todeath with the utmost tortures, because he had spoken againstthem in the senate. If Regulus acted thus, what tortures arenot to be despised for the sake of good faith toward thatcountry to whose beatitude faith itself leads? Or what willa man have rendered to the Lord for all He has bestowed uponhim, if, for the faithfulness he owes to Him, he shall have1 Matt. x. 28. 2 Matt. viii . 22.BOOK V. ] VIRTUES OF THE ROMANS. 213suffered such things as Regulus suffered at the hands of hismost ruthless enemies for the good faith which he owed tothem? And how shall a Christian dare vaunt himself of hisvoluntary poverty, which he has chosen in order that duringthe pilgrimage of this life he may walk the more disencumberedon the way which leads to the country where the true richesare, even God Himself;-how, I say, shall he vaunt himself.for this, when he hears or reads that Lucius Valerius, whodied when he was holding the office of consul, was so poorthat his funeral expenses were paid with money collected bythe people?—or when he hears that Quintius Cincinnatus,who, possessing only four acres of land, and cultivating themwith his own hands, was taken from the plough to be madedictator, an office more honourable even than that of consul,-and that, after having won great glory by conquering theenemy, he preferred notwithstanding to continue in his poverty?Or how shall he boast of having done a great thing, who hasnot been prevailed upon by the offer of any reward of thisworld to renounce his connection with that heavenly andeternal country, when he hears that Fabricius could not be prevailed on to forsake the Roman city by the great gifts offeredto him by Pyrrhus king of the Epirots, who promised him thefourth part of his kingdom, but preferred to abide there in hispoverty as a private individual? For if, when their republic,—that is, the interest of the people, the interest of the country,the common interest, -was most prosperous and wealthy, theythemselves were so poor in their own houses, that one of them,who had already been twice a consul, was expelled from thatsenate of poor men by the censor, because he was discoveredto possess ten pounds weight of silver-plate, since, I say,those very men by whose triumphs the public treasury wasenriched were so poor, ought not all Christians, who makecommon property of their riches with a far nobler purpose,even that (according to what is written in the Acts of theApostles) they may distribute to each one according to hisneed, and that no one may say that anything is his own, butthat all things may be their common possession,'—ought theynot to understand that they should not vaunt themselves, be1 Acts ii. 45.214 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK V.cause they do that to obtain the society of angels, when thosemen did well-nigh the same thing to preserve the glory of theRomans?How could these, and whatever like things are found in theRoman history, have become so widely known, and have beenproclaimed by so great a fame, had not the Roman empire,extending far and wide, been raised to its greatness by magnificent successes? Wherefore, through that empire, so extensive and of so long continuance, so illustrious and gloriousalso through the virtues of such great men, the reward whichthey sought was rendered to their earnest aspirations, and alsoexamples are set before us, containing necessary admonition,in order that we may be stung with shame if we shall see thatwe have not held fast those virtues for the sake of the mostglorious city of God, which are, in whatever way, resembledby those virtues which they held fast for the sake of the gloryof a terrestrial city, and that, too, if we shall feel consciousthat we have held them fast, we may not be lifted up withpride, because, as the apostle says, " The sufferings of thepresent time are not worthy to be compared to the glorywhich shall be revealed in us." But so far as regards humanand temporal glory, the lives of these ancient Romans werereckoned sufficiently worthy. Therefore, also, we see, in thelight of that truth which, veiled in the Old Testament, is revealed in the New, namely, that it is not in view of terrestrialand temporal benefits, which divine providence grants promiscuously to good and evil, that God is to be worshipped, but inview of eternal life, everlasting gifts, and of the society of theheavenly city itself;-in the light of this truth we see thatthe Jews were most righteously given as a trophy to the gloryof the Romans; for we see that these Romans, who rested onearthly glory, and sought to obtain it by virtues, such as theywere, conquered those who, in their great depravity, slew andrejected the giver of true glory, and of the eternal city." 119. Concerning the difference between truc glory and the desire ofdomination.There is assuredly a difference between the desire of humanglory and the desire of domination; for, though he who has1 Rom. viii. 18.BOOK V. ] LOVE OF PRAISE. 215an overweening delight in human glory will be also very proneto aspire earnestly after domination, nevertheless they whodesire the true glory even of human praise strive not to displease those who judge well of them. For there are manygood moral qualities, of which many are competent judges,although they are not possessed by many; and by those goodmoral qualities those men press on to glory, honour, and domination, of whom Sallust says, " But they press on by the trueway."But whosoever, without possessing that desire of glorywhich makes one fear to displease those who judge his conduct, desires domination and power, very often seeks to obtainwhat he loves by most open crimes. Therefore he who desiresglory presses on to obtain it either by the true way, or certainly by deceit and artifice, wishing to appear good whenhe is not. Therefore to him who possesses virtues it is agreat virtue to despise glory; for contempt of it is seen byGod, but is not manifest to human judgment. For whateverany one does before the eyes of men in order to show himselfto be a despiser of glory, if they suspect that he is doing itin order to get greater praise, that is, greater glory, he hasno means of demonstrating to the perceptions of those whosuspect him that the case is really otherwise than they suspect it to be. But he who despises the judgment of praisers,despises also the rashness of suspectors. Their salvation, indeed, he does not despise, if he is truly good; for so great isthe righteousness of that man who receives his virtues fromthe Spirit of God, that he loves his very enemies, and so lovesthem that he desires that his haters and detractors may beturned to righteousness, and become his associates, and that notin an earthly but in a heavenly country. But with respectto his praisers, though he sets little value on their praise, hedoes not set little value on their love; neither does he eludetheir praise, lest he should forfeit their love. And, therefore,he strives earnestly to have their praises directed to Him fromwhom every one receives whatever in him is truly praiseworthy. But he who is a despiser of glory, but is greedy ofdomination, exceeds the beasts in the vices of cruelty andluxuriousness. Such, indeed, were certain of the Romans,216 THE [BOOK V. CITY OF GOD.who, wanting the love of esteem, wanted not the thirst fordomination; and that there were many such, history testifies.But it was Nero Cæsar who was the first to reach the summit,and, as it were, the citadel, of this vice; for so great was hisluxuriousness, that one would have thought there was nothingmanly to be dreaded in him, and such his cruelty, that, hadnot the contrary been known, no one would have thoughtthere was anything effeminate in his character. Neverthelesspower and domination are not given even to such men saveby the providence of the most high God, when He judges thatthe state of human affairs is worthy of such lords. The divineutterance is clear on this matter; for the Wisdom of God thusspeaks: " By me kings reign, and tyrants possess the land." ¹But, that it may not be thought that by "tyrants " is meant,not wicked and impious kings, but brave men, in accordancewith the ancient use of the word, as when Virgil says," For know that treaty may not standWhere king greets king and joins not hand, ""2in another place it is most unambiguously said of God, thatHe "maketh the man who is an hypocrite to reign on accountof the perversity of the people. " Wherefore, though I have,according to my ability, shown for what reason God, whoalone is true and just, helped forward the Romans, who weregood according to a certain standard of an earthly state, tothe acquirement of the glory of so great an empire, there maybe, nevertheless, a more hidden cause, known better to Godthan to us, depending on the diversity of the merits of thehuman race. Among all who are truly pious, it is at allevents agreed that no one without true piety—that is, trueworship of the true God-can have true virtue; and that itis not true virtue which is the slave of human praise. Though,nevertheless, they who are not citizens of the eternal city,which is called the city of God in the sacred Scriptures, aremore useful to the earthly city when they possess even thatvirtue than if they had not even that. But there could benothing more fortunate for human affairs than that, by themercy of God, they who are endowed with true piety of life,if they have the skill for ruling people, should also have the1 Prov. viii. 15. 2 Eneid, vii. 266. 3 Job xxxiv. 30.BOOK V. ] PLEASURE DEPICTED AS A QUEEN. 217power. But such men, however great virtues they may possessin this life, attribute it solely to the grace of God that He hasbestowed it on them-willing, believing, seeking. And, atthe same time, they understand how far they are short of thatperfection of righteousness which exists in the society of thoseholy angels for which they are striving to fit themselves. Buthowever much that virtue may be praised and cried up, whichwithout true piety is the slave of human glory, it is not atall to be compared even to the feeble beginnings of the virtueof the saints, whose hope is placed in the grace and mercy ofthe true God.20. That it is as shamefulfor the virtues to serve human glory as bodily pleasure.Philosophers, who place the end of human good in virtueitself, in order to put to shame certain other philosophers, whoindeed approve of the virtues, but measure them all withreference to the end of bodily pleasure, and think that thispleasure is to be sought for its own sake, but the virtues onaccount of pleasure, are wont to paint a kind of word- picture,in which Pleasure sits like a luxurious queen on a royal seat,and all the virtues are subjected to her as slaves, watching hernod, that they may do whatever she shall command. Shecommands Prudence to be ever on the watch to discoverhow Pleasure may rule, and be safe. Justice she orders togrant what benefits she can, in order to secure those friendships which are necessary for bodily pleasure; to do wrongto no one, lest, on account of the breaking of the laws, Pleasurebe not able to live in security. Fortitude she orders to keepher mistress, that is, Pleasure, bravely in her mind, if anyaffliction befall her body which does not occasion death, inorder that by remembrance of former delights she may miti-.gate the poignancy of present pain. Temperance she commands to take only a certain quantity even of the mostfavourite food, lest, through immoderate use, anything provehurtful by disturbing the health of the body, and thus Pleasure,which the Epicureans make to consist chiefly in the healthof the body, be grievously offended. Thus the virtues, withthe whole dignity of their glory, will be the slaves of Pleasure,as of some imperious and disreputable woman.There is nothing, say our philosophers, more disgraceful218 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK V.and monstrous than this picture, and which the eyes of goodmen can less endure. And they say the truth. But I donot think that the picture would be sufficiently becoming,even if it were made so that the virtues should be represented as the slaves of human glory; for, though that glorybe not a luxurious woman, it is nevertheless puffed up, andhas much vanity in it. Wherefore it is unworthy of thesolidity and firmness of the virtues to represent them asserving this glory, so that Prudence shall provide nothing,Justice distribute nothing, Temperance moderate nothing,except to the end that men may be pleased and vaingloryserved. Nor will they be able to defend themselves from thecharge of such baseness, whilst they, by way of being despisersof glory, disregard the judgment of other men, seem to themselves wise, and please themselves. For their virtue,―if, indeed, it is virtue at all, -is only in another way subjected tohuman praise; for he who seeks to please himself seeks stillto please man. But he who, with true piety towards God,whom he loves, believes, and hopes in, fixes his attention moreon those things in which he displeases himself, than on thosethings, if there are any such, which please himself, or rather,not himself, but the truth, does not attribute that by whichhe can now please the truth to anything but to the mercy ofHim whom he has feared to displease, giving thanks for whatin him is healed, and pouring out prayers for the healing ofthat which is yet unhealed.21. That the Roman dominion was granted by Himfrom whom is all power,and by whose providence all things are ruled.These things being so, we do not attribute the power ofgiving kingdoms and empires to any save to the true God,who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven to the piousalone, but gives kingly power on earth both to the pious andthe impious, as it may please Him, whose good pleasure isalways just. For though we have said something about theprinciples which guide His administration, in so far as it hasseemed good to Him to explain it, nevertheless it is too muchfor us, and far surpasses our strength, to discuss the hiddenthings of men's hearts, and by a clear examination to determine the merits of various kingdoms. He, therefore, who isBOOK V. ] GOD THE GIVER OF EMPIRE. 219the one true God, who never leaves the human race withoutjust judgment and help, gave a kingdom to the Romans whenHe would, and as great as He would, as He did also to theAssyrians, and even the Persians, by whom, as their own bookstestify, only two gods are worshipped, the one good and theother evil, to say nothing concerning the Hebrew people, ofwhom I have already spoken as much as seemed necessary,who, as long as they were a kingdom, worshipped none savethe true God. The same, therefore, who gave to the Persiansharvests, though they did not worship the goddess Segetia,who gave the other blessings of the earth, though they didnot worship the many gods which the Romans supposed topreside, each one over some particular thing, or even many ofthem over each several thing, -He, I say, gave the Persians.dominion, though they worshipped none of those gods towhom the Romans believed themselves indebted for theempire. And the same is true in respect of men as wellas nations. He who gave power to Marius gave it also toCaius Cæsar; He who gave it to Augustus gave it also toNero; He also who gave it to the most benignant emperors,the Vespasians, father and son, gave it also to the cruelDomitian; and, finally, to avoid the necessity of going overthem all, He who gave it to the Christian Constantine gaveit also to the apostate Julian, whose gifted mind was deceivedby a sacrilegious and detestable curiosity, stimulated by thelove of power. And it was because he was addicted throughcuriosity to vain oracles, that, confident of victory, he burnedthe ships which were laden with the provisions necessary forhis army, and therefore, engaging with hot zeal in rashlyaudacious enterprises, he was soon slain, as the just consequence of his recklessness, and left his army unprovisionedin an enemy's country, and in such a predicament that itnever could have escaped, save by altering the boundaries ofthe Roman empire, in violation of that omen of the god Terminus of which I spoke in the preceding book; for the godTerminus yielded to necessity, though he had not yielded toJupiter. Manifestly these things are ruled and governed bythe one God according as He pleases; and if His motives arehid, are they therefore unjust?220 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK V.22. The durations and issues of war depend on the will ofGod.Thus also the durations of wars are determined by Him.as He may see meet, according to His righteous will, andpleasure, and mercy, to afflict or to console the human race,so that they are sometimes of longer, sometimes of shorterduration. The war of the Pirates and the third Punic warwere terminated with incredible celerity. Also the war ofthe fugitive gladiators, though in it many Roman generalsand the consuls were defeated, and Italy was terribly wastedand ravaged, was nevertheless ended in the third year, havingitself been, during its continuance, the end of much. ThePicentes, the Marsi, and the Peligni, not distant but Italiannations, after a long and most loyal servitude under theRoman yoke, attempted to raise their heads into liberty,though many nations had now been subjected to the Romanpower, and Carthage had been overthrown. In this Italianwar the Romans were very often defeated, and two consulsperished, besides other noble senators; nevertheless this calamity was not protracted over a long space of time, for thefifth year put an end to it. But the second Punic war, lastingfor the space of eighteen years, and occasioning the greatestdisasters and calamities to the republic, wore out and wellnigh consumed the strength of the Romans; for in two battlesabout seventy thousand Romans fell¹ The first Punic warwas terminated after having been waged for three- and-twentyyears. The Mithridatic war was waged for forty years. Andthat no one may think that in the early and much belaudedtimes of the Romans they were far braver and more ableto bring wars to a speedy termination, the Samnite war wasprotracted for nearly fifty years; and in this war the Romanswere so beaten that they were even put under the yoke. Butbecause they did not love glory for the sake of justice, butseemed rather to have loved justice for the sake of glory,they broke the peace and the treaty which had been concluded.These things I mention, because many, ignorant of past things,and some also dissimulating what they know, if in Christiantimes they see any war protracted a little longer than theyexpected, straightway make a fierce and insolent attack on¹ Of the Thrasymene Lake and Cannæ.BOOK V. ]GOD'S MERCY TO THE ROMANS. 221our religion, exclaiming that, but for it, the deities would havebeen supplicated still, according to ancient rites; and then, bythat bravery of the Romans, which, with the help of Mars andBellona, speedily brought to an end such great wars, this waralso would be speedily terminated. Let them, therefore, whohave read history recollect what long-continued wars, havingvarious issues and entailing woful slaughter, were waged bythe ancient Romans, in accordance with the general truththat the earth, like the tempestuous deep, is subject to agitations from tempests -tempests of such evils, in variousdegrees, and let them sometimes confess what they do notlike to own, and not, by madly speaking against God, destroythemselves and deceive the ignorant.23. Concerning the war in which Radagaisus, king of the Goths, a worshipperof demons, was conquered in one day, with all his mightyforces.Nevertheless they do not mention with thanksgiving whatGod has very recently, and within our own memory, wonderfully and mercifully done, but as far as in them lies theyattempt, if possible, to bury it in universal oblivion. Butshould we be silent about these things, we should be in likemanner ungrateful. When Radagaisus, king of the Goths,having taken up his position very near to the city, with a vastand savage army, was already close upon the Romans, he wasin one day so speedily and so thoroughly beaten, that, whilstnot even one Roman was wounded, much less slain, far morethan a hundred thousand of his army were prostrated, and hehimself and his sons, having been captured, were forthwithput to death, suffering the punishment they deserved. Forhad so impious a man, with so great and so impious a host,entered the city, whom would he have spared? what tombsof the martyrs would he have respected? in his treatmentof what person would he have manifested the fear of God?whose blood would he have refrained from shedding? whosechastity would he have wished to preserve inviolate? Buthow loud would they not have been in the praises of theirgods! How insultingly they would have boasted, saying thatRadagaisus had conquered, that he had been able to achievesuch great things, because he propitiated and won over thegods by daily sacrifices, -a thing which the Christian religion222 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK V.did not allow the Romans to do! For when he was approaching to those places where he was overwhelmed at the nod ofthe Supreme Majesty, as his fame was everywhere increasing,it was being told us at Carthage that the pagans were believing, publishing, and boasting, that he, on account of the helpand protection of the gods friendly to him, because of thesacrifices which he was said to be daily offering to them,would certainly not be conquered by those who were notperforming such sacrifices to the Roman gods, and did noteven permit that they should be offered by any one. Andnow these wretched men do not give thanks to God for Hisgreat mercy, who, having determined to chastise the corruption of men, which was worthy of far heavier chastisementthan the corruption of the barbarians, tempered His indignation with such mildness as, in the first instance, to cause thatthe king of the Goths should be conquered in a wonderfulmanner, lest glory should accrue to demons, whom he wasknown to be supplicating, and thus the mindsof the weakshould be overthrown; and then, afterwards, to cause that,when Rome was to be taken, it should be taken by thosebarbarians who, contrary to any custom of all former wars,protected, through reverence for the Christian religion, thosewho fled for refuge to the sacred places, and who so opposedthe demons themselves, and the rites of impious sacrifices,that they seemed to be carrying on a far more terrible warwith them than with men. Thus did the true Lord and Governor of things both scourge the Romans mercifully, and, by themarvellous defeat of the worshippers of demons, show thatthose sacrifices were not necessary even for the safety of present things; so that, by those who do not obstinately hold out,but prudently consider the matter, true religion may not bedeserted on account of the urgencies of the present time, butmay be more clung to in most confident expectation of eternallife.24. What was the happiness ofthe Christian emperors, and howfar it wastrue happiness.For neither do we say that certain Christian emperors weretherefore happy because they ruled a long time, or, dying apeaceful death, left their sons to succeed them in the empire,BOOK V. ]DESCRIPTION OF A HAPPY EMPEROR. 223or subdued the enemies of the republic, or were able both toguard against and to suppress the attempt of hostile citizensrising against them. These and other gifts or comforts of thissorrowful life even certain worshippers of demons have meritedto receive, who do not belong to the kingdom of God to whichthese belong; and this is to be traced to the mercy of God,who would not have those who believe in Him desire suchthings as the highest good. But we say that they are happyif they rule justly; if they are not lifted up amid the praisesof those who pay them sublime honours, and the obsequiousness of those who salute them with an excessive humility,but remember that they are men; if they make their powerthe handmaid of His majesty by using it for the greatest possible extension of His worship; if they fear, love, worshipGod; if more than their own they love that kingdom in whichthey are not afraid to have partners; if they are slow topunish, ready to pardon; if they apply that punishment asnecessary to government and defence of the republic, and notin order to gratify their own enmity; if they grant pardon,not that iniquity may go unpunished, but with the hope thatthe transgressor may amend his ways; if they compensatewith the lenity of mercy and the liberality of benevolencefor whatever severity they may be compelled to decree; iftheir luxury is as much restrained as it might have beenunrestrained; if they prefer to govern depraved desires ratherthan any nation whatever; and if they do all these things,not through ardent desire of empty glory, but through love ofeternal felicity, not neglecting to offer to the true God, whois their God, for their sins, the sacrifices of humility, contrition, and prayer. Such Christian emperors, we say, are happyin the present time by hope, and are destined to be so in theenjoyment of the reality itself, when that which we wait forshall have arrived.25. Concerning the prosperity which God granted to the Christian emperor Constantine.For the good God, lest men, who believe that He is to beworshipped with a view to eternal life, should think that noone could attain to all this high estate, and to this terrestrialdominion, unless he should be a worshipper of the demons, -224 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK V.supposing that these spirits have great power with respect tosuch things , for this reason He gave to the Emperor Constantine, who was not a worshipper of demons, but of thetrue God Himself, such fulness of earthly gifts as no onewould even dare wish for. To him also He granted thehonour of founding a city,¹ a companion to the Roman empire,the daughter, as it were, of Rome itself, but without anytemple or image of the demons. He reigned for a long periodas sole emperor, and unaided held and defended the wholeRoman world. In conducting and carrying on wars he wasmost victorious; in overthrowing tyrants he was most successful. He died at a great age, of sickness and old age, and lefthis sons to succeed him in the empire. But again, lest anyemperor should become a Christian in order to merit the happiness of Constantine, when every one should be a Christianfor the sake of eternal life, God took away Jovian far soonerthan Julian, and permitted that Gratian should be slain bythe sword of a tyrant. But in his case there was far moremitigation of the calamity than in the case of the greatPompey, for he could not be avenged by Cato, whom he hadleft, as it were, heir to the civil war. But Gratian, thoughpious minds require not such consolations, was avenged byTheodosius, whom he had associated with himself in theempire, though he had a little brother of his own, being moredesirous of a faithful alliance than of extensive power.226. On thefaith and piety of Theodosius Augustus.And on this account, Theodosius not only preserved during .the lifetime of Gratian that fidelity which was due to him,but also, after his death, he, like a true Christian, took hislittle brother Valentinian under his protection, as joint emperor, after he had been expelled by Maximus, the murdererof his father. He guarded him with paternal affection, thoughhe might without any difficulty have got rid of him, beingentirely destitute of all resources, had he been animated withthe desire of extensive empire, and not with the ambition ofbeing a benefactor. It was therefore a far greater pleasure tohim, when he had adopted the boy, and preserved to him his1 Constantinople. * Constantius, Constantine, and Constans.BOOK V. ] GREATNESS OF THEODOSIUS, 225imperial dignity, to console him by his very humanity andkindness. Afterwards, when that success was renderingMaximus terrible, Theodosius, in the midst of his perplexinganxieties, was not drawn away to follow the suggestions of asacrilegious and unlawful curiosity, but sent to John, whoseabode was in the desert of Egypt, for he had learned that thisservant of God (whose fame was spreading abroad) was endowedwith the gift of prophecy, —and from him he received assuranceof victory. Immediately the slayer of the tyrant Maximus,with the deepest feelings of compassion and respect, restoredthe boy Valentinianus to his share in the empire from whichhe had been driven. Valentinianus being soon after slain bysecret assassination, or by some other plot or accident, Theodosius, having again received a response from the prophet,and placing entire confidence in it, marched against the tyrantEugenius, who had been unlawfully elected to succeed thatemperor, and defeated his very powerful army, more by prayerthan by the sword. Some soldiers who were at the battlereported to me that all the missiles they were throwing weresnatched from their hands by a vehement wind, which blewfrom the direction of Theodosius' army upon the enemy; nordid it only drive with greater velocity the darts which werehurled against them, but also turned back upon their ownbodies the darts which they themselves were throwing. Andtherefore the poet Claudian, although an alien from the nameof Christ, nevertheless says in his praises of him, " O prince,too much beloved by God, for thee Eolus pours armed tempests.from their caves; for thee the air fights, and the winds withone accord obey thy bugles." ¹ But the victor, as he hadbelieved and predicted, overthrew the statues of Jupiter, whichhad been, as it were, consecrated by I know not what kindof rites against him, and set up in the Alps. And thethunderbolts of these statues, which were made of gold, hemirthfully and graciously presented to his couriers, who (asthe joy of the occasion permitted) were jocularly saying thatthey would be most happy to be struck by such thunderbolts.The sons of his own enemies, whose fathers had been slainnot so much by his orders as by the vehemence of war, having¹ Panegyr. de tertio Honorii consulatu.VOL. I. P226 THE [ BOOK V. CITY OF GOD.fled for refuge to a church, though they were not yet Christians,he was anxious, taking advantage of the occasion, to bringover to Christianity, and treated them with Christian love.Nor did he deprive them of their property, but, besides allowing them to retain it, bestowed on them additional honours.He did not permit private animosities to affect the treatment of any man after the war. He was not like Cinna,and Marius, and Sylla, and other such men, who wishednot to finish civil wars even when they were finished, butrather grieved that they had arisen at all, than wished thatwhen they were finished they should harm any one. Amidall these events, from the very commencement of his reign, hedid not cease to help the troubled church against the impiousby most just and merciful laws, which the heretical Valens,favouring the Arians, had vehemently afflicted. Indeed, herejoiced more to be a member of this church than he didto be a king upon the earth. The idols of the Gentiles heeverywhere ordered to be overthrown, understanding well thatnot even terrestrial gifts are placed in the power of demons,but in that of the true God. And what could be more admirable than his religious humility, when, compelled by theurgency of certain of his intimates, he avenged the grievouscrime of the Thessalonians, which at the prayer of the bishopshe had promised to pardon, and, being laid hold of by thediscipline of the church, did penance in such a way that thesight of his imperial loftiness prostrated made the people whowere interceding for him weep more than the consciousness ofoffence had made them fear it when enraged? These andother similar good works, which it would be long to tell, hecarried with him from this world of time, where the greatesthuman nobility and loftiness are but vapour. Of these worksthe reward is eternal happiness, of which God is the giver,though only to those who are sincerely pious. But all otherblessings and privileges of this life, as the world itself, light,air, earth, water, fruits, and the soul of man himself, his body,senses, mind, life, He lavishes on good and bad alike. Andamong these blessings is also to be reckoned the possession ofan empire, whose extent He regulates according to the requirements of His providential government at various times.Whence, I see, we must now answer those who, being con-BOOK V.] CONCLUSION. 227futed and convicted by the most manifest proofs, by which itis shown that for obtaining these terrestrial things, which areall the foolish desire to have, that multitude of false gods isof no use, attempt to assert that the gods are to be worshippedwith a view to the interest, not of the present life, but of thatwhich is to come after death. For as to those who, for thesake of the friendship of this world, are willing to worshipvanities, and do not grieve that they are left to their puerileunderstandings, I think they have been sufficiently answeredin these five books; of which books, when I had publishedthe first three, and they had begun to come into the hands ofmany, I heard that certain persons were preparing againstthem an answer of some kind or other in writing. Then itwas told me that they had already written their answer, butwere waiting a time when they could publish it withoutdanger. Such persons I would advise not to desire whatcannot be of any advantage to them; for it is very easy fora man to seem to himself to have answered arguments, whenhe has only been unwilling to be silent. For what is moreloquacious than vanity? And though it be able, if it like, toshout more loudly than the truth, it is not, for all that, morepowerful than the truth. But let men consider diligently allthe things that we have said, and if, perchance, judging without party spirit, they shall clearly perceive that they are suchthings as may rather be shaken than torn up by their mostimpudent garrulity, and, as it were, satirical and mimic levity,let them restrain their absurdities, and let them choose ratherto be corrected by the wise than to be lauded by the foolish.For if they are waiting an opportunity, not for liberty to speakthe truth, but for licence to revile, may not that befall themwhich Tully says concerning some one, " Oh, wretched man!who was at liberty to sin?" Wherefore, whoever he bewho deems himself happy because of licence to revile, hewould be far happier if that were not allowed him at all; forhe might all the while, laying aside empty boast, be contradicting those to whose views he is opposed by way of freeconsultation with them, and be listening, as it becomes him,honourably, gravely, candidly, to all that can be adduced bythose whom he consults by friendly disputation.1 Tusc. Quaest. v. 19.228 [BOOK VI. THE CITY OF GOD.BOOK SIXTH.ARGUMENT.HITHERTO THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVETHAT THE GODS ARE TO BE WORSHIPPED FOR THE SAKE OF TEMPORAL ADVANTAGES, NOW IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THEYARE TO BE WORSHIPPED FOR THE SAKE OF ETERNAL LIFE. AUGUSTINEDEVOTES THE FIVE FOLLOWING BOOKS TO THE CONFUTATION OF THIS LATTERBELIEF, AND FIRST OF ALL SHOWS HOW MEAN AN OPINION OF THE GODSWAS HELD BY VARRO HIMSELF, THE MOST ESTEEMED WRITER ON HEATHEN THEOLOGY. OF THIS THEOLOGY AUGUSTINE ADOPTS VARRO'S DIVISION INTOTHREE KINDS, MYTHICAL, NATURAL, AND CIVIL; AND AT ONCE DEMON- STRATES THAT NEITHER THE MYTHICAL NOR THE CIVIL CAN CONTRIBUTEANYTHING TO THE HAPPINESS OF THE FUTURE LIFE.INPREFACE.N the five former books, I think I have sufficiently disputed against those who believe that the many false gods,which the Christian truth shows to be useless images, or unclean spirits and pernicious demons, or certainly creatures, notthe Creator, are to be worshipped for the advantage of thismortal life, and of terrestrial affairs, with that rite and servicewhich the Greeks call λarpeía, and which is due to the onetrue God. And who does not know that, in the face ofexcessive stupidity and obstinacy, neither these five nor anyother number of books whatsoever could be enough, when it isesteemed the glory of vanity to yield to no amount of strengthon the side of truth, -certainly to his destruction over whomso heinous a vice tyrannizes? For, notwithstanding all theassiduity of the physician who attempts to effect a cure, thedisease remains unconquered, not through any fault of his, butbecause of the incurableness of the sick man. But those whothoroughly weigh the things which they read, having understood and considered them, without any, or with no great andexcessive degree of that obstinacy which belongs to a longcherished error, will more readily judge that, in the fivebooks already finished, we have done more than the neces-BOOK VI. ] DO THE GODS GIVE ETERNAL LIFE? 229sity of the question demanded, than that we have given it lessdiscussion than it required. And they cannot have doubtedbut that all the hatred which the ignorant attempt to bringupon the Christian religion on account of the disasters of thislife, and the destruction and change which befall terrestrialthings, whilst the learned do not merely dissimulate, but encourage that hatred, contrary to their own consciences, beingpossessed by a mad impiety;-they cannot have doubted, I say,but that this hatred is devoid of right reflection and reason,and full of most light temerity, and most pernicious animosity.1. Ofthose who maintain that they worship the gods notfor the sake oftemporal, but eternal advantages.Now, as, in the next place (as the promised order demands),those are to be refuted and taught who contend that the godsof the nations, which the Christian truth destroys, are to beworshipped not on account of this life, but on account of thatwhich is to be after death, I shall do well to commence mydisputation with the truthful oracle of the holy psalm, " Blessedis the man whose hope is the Lord God, and who respectethnot vanities and lying follies." Nevertheless, in all vanitiesand lying follies the philosophers are to be listened to withfar more toleration, who have repudiated those opinions anderrors of the people; for the people set up images to thedeitties, and either feigned concerning those whom they callimmortal gods many false and unworthy things, or believedthem, already feigned, and, when believed, mixed them upwith their worship and sacred rites.With those men who, though not by free avowal of theirconvictions, do still testify that they disapprove of those thingsby their muttering disapprobation during disputations on thesubject, it may not be very far amiss to discuss the followingquestion: Whether, for the sake of the life which is to beafter death, we ought to worship, not the one God, who madeall creatures spiritual and corporeal, but those many gods who,as some of these philosophers hold, were made by that one God,and placed by Him in their respective sublime spheres, and aretherefore considered more excellent and more noble than all theothers? 2 But who will assert that it must be affirmed and1 Ps. xl. 4. Plato, in the Timæus.230 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VI-contended that those gods, certain of whom I have mentionedin the fourth book, to whom are distributed, each to each, thecharges of minute things, do bestow eternal life? But will thosemost skilled and most acute men, who glory in having writtenfor the great benefit of men, to teach on what account each godis to be worshipped, and what is to be sought from each, lestwith most disgraceful absurdity, such as a mimic is wont forthe sake of merriment to exhibit, water should be sought fromLiber, wine from the Lymphs, -will those men indeed affirmto any man supplicating the immortal gods, that when heshall have asked wine from the Lymphs, and they shall haveanswered him, " We have water, seek wine from Liber," hemay rightly say, " If ye have not wine, at least give meeternal life?" What more monstrous than this absurdity?Will not these Lymphs, for they are wont to be very easilymade laugh, —laughing loudly (if they do not attempt todeceive like demons), answer the suppliant, " O man, dostthou think that we have life (vitam) in our power, who thouhearest have not even the vine (vitem)? " It is therefore mostimpudent folly to seek and hope for eternal life from suchgods as are asserted so to preside over the separate minuteconcernments of this most sorrowful and short life, and whatever is useful for supporting and propping it, as that if anything which is under the care and power of one be soughtfrom another, it is so incongruous and absurd that it appearsvery like to mimic drollery, -which, when it is done bymimics knowing what they are doing, is deservedly laughedat in the theatre, but when it is done by foolish persons, whodo not know better, is more deservedly ridiculed in the world.Wherefore, as concerns those gods which the states haveestablished, it has been cleverly invented and handed down tomemory by learned men, what god or goddess is to be supplicated in relation to every particular thing, what, forinstance, is to be sought from Liber, what from the Lymphs,what from Vulcan, and so of all the rest, some of whom Ihave mentioned in the fourth book, and some I have thoughtright to omit. Further, if it is an error to seek wine fromCeres, bread from Liber, water from Vulcan, fire from the1 Ch. xi. and xxi. 2 See Virgil, Ec. iii . 9.--BOOK VI. ] THE LIMITED POWER OF THE GODS.. 231Lymphs, how much greater absurdity ought it to be thought,if supplication be made to any one of these for eternal life?Wherefore, if, when we were inquiring what gods or goddesses are to be believed to be able to confer earthly kingdoms upon men, all things having been discussed, it was shownto be very far from the truth to think that even terrestrialkingdoms are established by any of those many false deities,is it not most insane impiety to believe that eternal life,which is, without any doubt or comparison, to be preferredto all terrestrial kingdoms, can be given to any one by any ofthese gods? For the reason why such gods seemed to us notto be able to give even an earthly kingdom, was not becausethey are very great and exalted, whilst that is something smalland abject, which they, in their so great sublimity, wouldnot condescend to care for, but because, however deservedlyany one may, in consideration of human frailty, despise thefalling pinnacles of an earthly kingdom, these gods have presented such an appearance as to seem most unworthy to havethe granting and preserving of even those entrusted to them;and consequently, if (as we have taught in the two last booksof our work, where this matter is treated of) no god out of allthat crowd, either belonging to, as it were, the plebeian or tothe noble gods, is fit to give mortal kingdoms to mortals, howmuch less is he able to make immortals of mortals?And more than this, if, according to the opinion of thosewith whom we are now arguing, the gods are to be worshipped,not on account of the present life, but of that which is to beafter death, then, certainly, they are not to be worshipped onaccount of those particular things which are distributed andportioned out (not by any law of rational truth, but by merevain conjecture) to the power of such gods, as they believe theyought to be worshipped, who contend that their worship is necessary for all the desirable things of this mortal life, against whomI have disputed sufficiently, as far as I was able, in the five preceding books. These things being so, if the age itself of thosewho worshipped the goddess Juventas should be characterizedby remarkable vigour, whilst her despisers should either diewithin the years of youth, or should, during that period, growcold as with the torpor of old age; if bearded Fortuna should232 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VI. .cover the cheeks of her worshippers more handsomely and moregracefully than all others, whilst we should see those by whomshe was despised either altogether beardless or ill-bearded;even then we should most rightly say, that thus far theseseveral gods had power, limited in some way by their functions,and that, consequently, neither ought eternal life to be soughtfrom Juventas, who could not give a beard, nor ought anygood thing after this life to be expected from Fortuna Barbata,who has no power even in this life to give the age itself atwhich the beard grows. But now, when their worship isnecessary not even on account of those very things whichthey think are subjected to their power, -for many worshippersof the goddess Juventas have not been at all vigorous at thatage, and many who do not worship her rejoice in youthfulstrength; and also many suppliants of Fortuna Barbata haveeither not been able to attain to any beard at all, not even anugly one, although they who adore her in order to obtain abeard are ridiculed by her bearded despisers, is the humanheart really so foolish as to believe that that worship of thegods, which it acknowledges to be vain and ridiculous withrespect to those very temporal and swiftly passing gifts, overeach of which one of these gods is said to preside, is fruitfulin results with respect to eternal life? And that they are ableto give eternal life has not been affirmed even by those who,that they might be worshipped by the silly populace, distributed in minute division among them these temporaloccupations, that none of them might sit idle; for they hadsupposed the existence of an exceedingly great number.2. What we are to believe that Varro thought concerning the gods ofthe nations,whose various kinds and sacred rites he has shown to be such that hewould have acted more reverently towards them had he been altogethersilent concerning them.Who has investigated those things more carefully thanMarcus Varro? Who has discovered them more learnedly?Who has considered them more attentively? Who has distinguished them more acutely? Who has written about themmore diligently and more fully?-who, though he is lesspleasing in his eloquence, is nevertheless so full of instruction and wisdom, that in all the erudition which we callBOOK VI. ] OF VARRO. 233secular, but they liberal, he will teach the student of thingsas much as Cicero delights the student of words.And evenTully himself renders him such testimony, as to say in hisAcademic books that he had held that disputation which isthere carried on with Marcus Varro, " a man," he adds, " unquestionably the acutest of all men, and, without any doubt,the most learned." 1 He does not say the most eloquent orthe most fluent, for in reality he was very deficient in thisfaculty, but he says, of all men the most acute." Andin those books, —that is, the Academic,-where he contends that all things are to be doubted, he adds of him,"without any doubt the most learned." In truth, he was socertain concerning this thing, that he laid aside that doubtwhich he is wont to have recourse to in all things, as if,when about to dispute in favour of the doubt of the Academics, he had, with respect to this one thing, forgotten ,that he was an Academic. But in the first book, when heextols the literary works of the same Varro, he says, “ Usstraying and wandering in our own city like strangers, thybooks, as it were, brought home, that at length we mightcome to know of who we were and where we were. Thouhast opened up to us the age of the country, the distributionof seasons, the laws of sacred things, and of the priests; thouhast opened up to us domestic and public discipline; thouhast pointed out to us the proper places for religious ceremonies, and hast informed us concerning sacred places. Thouhast shown us the names, kinds, offices, causes of all divineand human things. " "This man, then, of so distinguished and excellent acquirements, and, as Terentian briefly says of him in a most elegantverse,993 " Varro, a man universally informed, "who read so much that we wonder when he had time to write,wrote so much that we can scarcely believe any one could haveread it all, this man, I say, so great in talent, so great in1 Of the four books De Acad. , dedicated to Varro, only a part of the first isextant.2 Cicero, De Quæst. Acad. i. 3.3 In his book De Metris, chapter on phalacian verses.234 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK VI.learning, had he been an opposer and destroyer of the so-calleddivine things of which he wrote, and had he said that theypertained to superstition rather than to religion, might perhaps, even in that case, not have written so many thingswhich are ridiculous, contemptible, detestable. But when heso worshipped these same gods, and so vindicated theirworship, as to say, in that same literary work of his, thathe was afraid lest they should perish, not by an assaultby enemies, but by the negligence of the citizens, and thatfrom this ignominy they are being delivered by him, and arebeing laid up and preserved in the memory of the good bymeans of such books, with a zeal far more beneficial than thatthrough which Metellus is declared to have rescued the sacredthings of Vesta from the flames, and Æneas to have rescuedthe Penates from the burning of Troy; and when he, nevertheless, gives forth such things to be read by succeeding agesas are deservedly judged by wise and unwise to be unfit tobe read, and to be most hostile to the truth of religion; whatought we to think but that a most acute and learned man,-not, however, made free by the Holy Spirit,-was overpoweredby the custom and laws of his state, and, not being able to besilent about those things by which he was influenced, spokeof them under pretence of commending religion?3. Varro's distribution of his book which he composed concerning the antiquitiesofhuman and divine things.He wrote forty-one books of antiquities. These he dividedinto human and divine things. Twenty-five he devoted tohuman things, sixteen to divine things; following this plan inthat division,—namely, to give six books to each of the fourdivisions of human things. For he directs his attention tothese considerations: who perform, where they perform, whenthey perform, what they perform. Therefore in the first sixbooks he wrote concerning men; in the second six, concerningplaces; in the third six, concerning times; in the fourth andlast six, concerning things. Four times six, however, makeonly twenty-four. But he placed at the head of them oneseparate work, which spoke of all these things conjointly.In divine things, the same order he preserved throughout,as far as concerns those things which are performed to theBOOK VI. ] ACCOUNT OF VARRO'S BOOK. 235gods. For sacred things are performed by men in places andtimes. These four things I have mentioned he embraced intwelve books, allotting three to each. For he wrote the firstthree concerning men, the following three concerning places,the third three concerning times, and the fourth three concerning sacred rites, showing who should perform, where theyshould perform, when they should perform, what they shouldperform, with most subtle distinction. But because it wasnecessary to say—and that especially was expected-to whomthey should perform sacred rites, he wrote concerning the godsthemselves the last three books; and these five times threemade fifteen . But they are in all, as we have said, sixteen.For he put also at the beginning of these one distinct book,speaking by way of introduction of all which follows; whichbeing finished, he proceeded to subdivide the first three inthat fivefold distribution which pertain to men, making thefirst concerning high priests, the second concerning augurs,the third concerning the fifteen men presiding over the sacredceremonies.¹ The second three he made concerning places,speaking in one of them concerning their chapels, in thesecond concerning their temples, and in the third concerningreligious places. The next three which follow these, and pertain to times, that is, to festival days,-he distributed so asto make one concerning holidays, the other concerning thecircus games, and the third concerning scenic plays. Of thefourth three, pertaining to sacred things, he devoted one toconsecrations, another to private, the last to public, sacredrites. In the three which remain, the gods themselves followthis pompous train, as it were, for whom all this culture hasbeen expended. In the first book are the certain gods, in thesecond the uncertain, in the third, and last of all, the chiefand select gods.4. Thatfrom the disputation of Varro, it follows that the worshippers ofthegods regard human things as more ancient than divine things.In this whole series of most beautiful and most subtle dis1 Tarquin the Proud, having bought the books of the sibyl, appointed two men to preserve and interpret them ( Dionys. Halic. Antiq. iv. 62) . These wereafterwards increased to ten, while the plebeians were contending for larger privi- leges; and subsequently five more were added.236 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VI.tributions and distinctions, it will most easily appear evidentfrom the things we have said already, and from what is to besaid hereafter, to any man who is not, in the obstinacy of hisheart, an enemy to himself, that it is vain to seek and to hopefor, and even most impudent to wish for eternal life.Forthese institutions are either the work of men or of demons,-not of those whom they call good demons, but, to speak moreplainly, of unclean, and, without controversy, malign spirits,who with wonderful slyness and secretness suggest to thethoughts of the impious, and sometimes openly present totheir understandings, noxious opinions, by which the humanmind grows more and more foolish, and becomes unable toadapt itself to and abide in the immutable and eternal truth,and seek to confirm these opinions by every kind of fallaciousattestation in their power. This very same Varro testifiesthat he wrote first concerning human things, but afterwardsconcerning divine things, because the states existed first, andafterward these things were instituted by them. But thetrue religion was not instituted by any earthly state, butplainly it established the celestial city. It, however, isinspired and taught by the true God, the giver of eternal lifeto His true worshippers.The following is the reason Varro gives when he confessesthat he had written first concerning human things, and afterwards of divine things, because these divine things were instituted by men:-" As the painter is before the paintedtablet, the mason before the edifice, so states are before thosethings which are instituted by states." But he says that hewould have written first concerning the gods, afterwards concerning men, if he had been writing concerning the wholenature of the gods, as if he were really writing concerningsome portion of, and not all, the nature of the gods; or as if,indeed, some portion of, though not all, the nature of the godsought not to be put before that of men. How, then, comes itthat in those three last books, when he is diligently explaining the certain, uncertain, and select gods, he seems to passover no portion of the nature of the gods? Why, then, doeshe say, If we had been writing on the whole nature of thegods, we would first have finished the divine things before weBOOK VI. ] VARRO'S DIVISION OF HIS SUBJECT. 237"" ""touched the human?" For he either writes concerning thewhole nature of the gods, or concerning some portion of it,or concerning no part of it at all. If concerning it all, it iscertainly to be put before human things; if concerning somepart of it, why should it not, from the very nature of the case,precede human things? Is not even some part of the godsto be preferred to the whole of humanity? But if it is toomuch to prefer a part of the divine to all human things, thatpart is certainly worthy to be preferred to the Romans atleast. For he writes the books concerning human things, notwith reference to the whole world, but only to Rome; whichbooks he says he had properly placed, in the order of writing,before the books on divine things, like a painter before thepainted tablet, or a mason before the building, most openlyconfessing that, as a picture or a structure, even these divinethings were instituted by men. There remains only the thirdsupposition, that he is to be understood to have written concerning no divine nature, but that he did not wish to saythis openly, but left it to the intelligent to infer; for whenone says "not all," usage understands that to mean some,"but it may be understood as meaning none, because that whichis none is neither all nor some. In fact, as he himself says,if he had been writing concerning all the nature of the gods,its due place would have been before human things in theorder of writing. But, as the truth declares, even thoughVarro is silent, the divine nature should have taken precedenceof Roman things, though it were not all, but only some.it is properly put after, therefore it is none. His arrangement,therefore, was due, not to a desire to give human things priorityto divine things, but to his unwillingness to prefer false thingsto true. For in what he wrote on human things, he followedthe history of affairs; but in what he wrote concerning thosethings which they call divine, what else did he follow butmere conjectures about vain things? This, doubtless, is what,in a subtle manner, he wished to signify; not only writingconcerning divine things after the human, but even givinga reason why he did so; for if he had suppressed this, some,perchance, would have defended his doing so in one way, andsome in another. But in that very reason he has rendered,But238 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK VI.he has left nothing for men to conjecture at will, and has sufficiently proved that he preferred men to the institutions ofmen, not the nature of men to the nature of the gods. Thushe confessed that, in writing the books concerning divinethings, he did not write concerning the truth which belongsto nature, but the falseness which belongs to error; whichhe has elsewhere expressed more openly (as I have mentionedin the fourth book¹), saying that, had he been founding a newcity himself, he would have written according to the order ofnature; but as he had only found an old one, he could notbut follow its custom.5. Concerning the three kinds of theology according to Varro, namely, onefabulous, the other natural, the third civil.Now what are we to say of this proposition of his, namely,that there are three kinds of theology, that is, of the accountwhich is given of the gods; and of these, the one is calledmythical, the other physical, and the third civil? Did theLatin usage permit, we should call the kind which he hasplaced first in order fabular, but let us call it fabulous, formythical is derived from the Greek μvos, a fable; but thatthe second should be called natural, the usage of speech nowadmits; the third he himself has designated in Latin, callingit civil. Then he says, " they call that kind mythical whichthe poets chiefly use; physical, that which the philosophers.use; civil, that which the people use. As to the first I havementioned," says he, " in it are many fictions, which are contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals. For wefind in it that one god has been born from the head, anotherfrom the thigh, another from drops of blood; also, in thiswe find that gods have stolen, committed adultery, servedmen; in a word, in this all manner of things are attributedto the gods, such as may befall, not merely any man, buteven the most contemptible man." He certainly, wherehe could, where he dared, where he thought he could doit with impunity, has manifested, without any of the haziness of ambiguity, how great injury was done to the natureof the gods by lying fables; for he was speaking, not concerning natural theology, not concerning civil, but concerning1 Ch. 31. 2 Fabulare. 3 Fabulosum. 4 Civile.BOOK VI. ] VARRO'S THREE KINDS OF THEOLOGY. 239fabulous theology, which he thought he could freely find faultwith.Let us see, now, what he says concerning the second kind."The second kind which I have explained," he says, " is thatconcerning which philosophers have left many books, in whichthey treat such questions as these: what gods there are, wherethey are, of what kind and character they are, since what timethey have existed, or if they have existed from eternity;whether they are of fire, as Heraclitus believes; or of number,as Pythagoras; or of atoms, as Epicurus says; and other suchthings, which men's ears can more easily hear inside the wallsof a school than outside in the Forum." He finds fault withnothing in this kind of theology which they call physical, andwhich belongs to philosophers, except that he has related theircontroversies among themselves, through which there has arisena multitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removedthis kind from the Forum, that is, from the populace, but hehas shut it up in schools. But that first kind, most false andmost base, he has not removed from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and among them even those of theRomans, that are not able to bear what the philosophers disputeconcerning the gods! But when the poets sing and stageplayers act such things as are derogatory to the dignity andthe nature of the immortals, such as may befall not a manmerely, but the most contemptible man, they not only bear,but willingly listen to. Nor is this all, but they even consider that these things please the gods, and that they arepropitiated by them.But some one may say, Let us distinguish these two kindsof theology, the mythical and the physical, —that is, thefabulous and the natural, -from this civil kind about whichwe are now speaking. Anticipating this, he himself has distinguished them. Let us see now how he explains the civiltheology itself. I see, indeed, why it should be distinguishedas fabulous, even because it is false, because it is base, becauseit is unworthy. But to wish to distinguish the natural fromthe civil, what else is that but to confess that the civil itselfis false? For if that be natural, what fault has it that itshould be excluded? And if this which is called civil be not240 THE CITY of God [ BOOK VI. .natural, what merit has it that it should be admitted? This,in truth, is the cause why he wrote first concerning humanthings, and afterwards concerning divine things; since indivine things he did not follow nature, but the institutionof men. Let us look at this civil theology of his. " Thethird kind," says he, " is that which citizens in cities, andespecially the priests, ought to know and to administer. Fromit is to be known what god each one may suitably worship,what sacred rites and sacrifices each one may suitably perform." Let us still attend to what follows. "The first theology," he says, " is especially adapted to the theatre, the secondto the world, the third to the city." Who does not see towhich he gives the palm? Certainly to the second, whichhe said above is that of the philosophers. For he testifiesthat this pertains to the world, than which they think thereis nothing better. But those two theologies, the first and thethird, to wit, those of the theatre and of the city,-has hedistinguished them or united them? For although we seethat the city is in the world, we do not see that it followsthat any things belonging to the city pertain to the world.For it is possible that such things may be worshipped andbelieved in the city, according to false opinions, as have noexistence either in the world or out of it. But where is thetheatre but in the city? Who instituted the theatre but thestate? For what purpose did it constitute it but for scenicplays? And to what class of things do scenic plays belongbut to those divine things concerning which these books ofVarro's are written with so much ability?6. Concerning the mythic, that is, thefabulous, theology, and the civil,against Varro.O Marcus Varro! thou art the most acute, and withoutdoubt the most learned, but still a man, not God, -now liftedup by the Spirit of God to see and to announce divine things,thou seest, indeed, that divine things are to be separated fromhuman trifles and lies, but thou fearest to offend those mostcorrupt opinions of the populace, and their customs in public.superstitions, which thou thyself, when thou considerest themon all sides, perceivest, and all your literature loudly pronounces to be abhorrent from the nature of the gods, evenBOOK VI. ] VARRO'S THEOLOGY DISCUSSED. 241of such gods as the frailty of the human mind supposes toexist in the elements of this world. What can the mostexcellent human talent do here? What can human learning, though manifold, avail thee in this perplexity? Thoudesirest to worship the natural gods; thou art compelled toworship the civil. Thou hast found some of the gods to befabulous, on whom thou vomitest forth very freely what thouthinkest, and, whether thou willest or not, thou wettest therewith even the civil gods. Thou sayest, forsooth, that thefabulous are adapted to the theatre, the natural to the world,and the civil to the city; though the world is a divine work,but cities and theatres are the works of men, and though thegods who are laughed at in the theatre are not other thanthose who are adored in the temples; and ye do not exhibitgames in honour of other gods than those to whom ye immolate victims. How much more freely and more subtlywouldst thou have decided these hadst thou said that somegods are natural, others established by men; and concerningthose who have been so established, the literature of the poetsgives one account, and that of the priests another,—both ofwhich are, nevertheless, so friendly the one to the other,through fellowship in falsehood, that they are both pleasingto the demons, to whom the doctrine of the truth is hostile.That theology, therefore, which they call natural, beingput aside for a moment, as it is afterwards to be discussed,we ask if any one is really content to seek a hope foreternal life from poetical, theatrical, scenic gods? Perishthe thought! The true God avert so wild and sacrilegiousa madness! What, is eternal life to be asked from thosegods whom these things pleased, and whom these things propitiate, in which their own crimes are represented? No one,as I think, has arrived at such a pitch of headlong andfurious impiety. So then, neither by the fabulous nor bythe civil theology does any one obtain eternal life. For theone sows base things concerning the gods by feigning them,the other reaps by cherishing them; the one scatters lies, theother gathers them together; the one pursues divine thingswith false crimes, the other incorporates among divine thingsthe plays which are made up of these crimes; the one soundsVOL. I. Q242 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK VI.abroad in human songs impious fictions concerning the gods,the other consecrates these for the festivities of the godsthemselves; the one sings the misdeeds and crimes of thegods, the other loves them; the one gives forth or feigns, theother either attests the true or delights in the false. Bothare base; both are damnable. But the one which is theatricalteaches public abomination, and that one which is of the cityadorns itself with that abomination. Shall eternal life behoped for from these, by which this short and temporal lifeis polluted? Does the society of wicked men pollute our lifeif they insinuate themselves into our affections, and win ourassent? and does not the society of demons pollute the life,who are worshipped with their own crimes?—if with truecrimes, how wicked the demons! if with false, how wickedthe worship!When we say these things, it may perchance seem to someone who is very ignorant of these matters that only thosethings concerning the gods which are sung in the songs ofthe poets and acted on the stage are unworthy of the divine.majesty, and ridiculous, and too detestable to be celebrated,whilst those sacred things which not stage-players but priestsperform are pure and free from all unseemliness. Had thisbeen so, never would any one have thought that these theatrical abominations should be celebrated in their honour, neverwould the gods themselves have ordered them to be performedto them. But men are in nowise ashamed to perform thesethings in the theatres, because similar things are carried onin the temples. In short, when the fore-mentioned authorattempted to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulousand natural, as a sort of third and distinct kind, he wished itto be understood to be rather tempered by both than separatedfrom either. For he says that those things which the poetswrite are less than the people ought to follow, whilst whatthe philosophers say is more than it is expedient for the peopleto pry into. " Which," says he, " differ in such a way, thatnevertheless not a few things from both of them have beentaken to the account of the civil theology; wherefore we willindicate what the civil theology has in common with that ofthe poet, though it ought to be more closely connected withBOOK VI. ] THE FABULOUS AND CIVIL THEOLOGIES. 243the theology of philosophers." Civil theology is therefore notquite disconnected from that of the poets. Nevertheless, inanother place, concerning the generations of the gods, he saysthat the people are more inclined toward the poets than towardthe physical theologists. For in this place he said what oughtto be done; in that other place, what was really done. Hesaid that the latter had written for the sake of utility, but thepoets for the sake of amusement. And hence the things fromthe poets' writings, which the people ought not to follow, arethe crimes of the gods; which, nevertheless, amuse both thepeople and the gods. For, for amusement's sake, he says, thepoets write, and not for that of utility; nevertheless they writesuch things as the gods will desire, and the people perform.7. Concerning the likeness and agreement of the fabulous and civil theologies.That theology, therefore, which is fabulous, theatrical, scenic,and full of all baseness and unseemliness, is taken up intothe civil theology; and part of that theology, which in itstotality is deservedly judged to be worthy of reprobation andrejection, is pronounced worthy to be cultivated and observed;-not at all an incongruous part, as I have undertaken toshow, and one which, being alien to the whole body, wasunsuitably attached to and suspended from it, but a partentirely congruous with, and most harmoniously fitted tothe rest, as a member of the same body. For what elsedo those images, forms, ages, sexes, characteristics of thegods show? If the poets have Jupiter with a beard, andMercury beardless, have not the priests the same? Is thePriapus of the priests less obscene than the Priapus of theplayers? Does he receive the adoration of worshippers in adifferent form from that in which he moves about the stagefor the amusement of spectators? Is not Saturn old andApollo young in the shrines where their images stand, as wellas when represented by actors' masks? Why are Forculus,who presides over doors, and Limentinus, who presides overthresholds and lintels, male gods, and Cardea between themfeminine, who presides over hinges? Are not those thingsfound in books on divine things, which grave poets havedeemed unworthy of their verses? Does the Diana of the244 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VI. .theatre carry arms, whilst the Diana of the city is simply avirgin? Is the stage Apollo a lyrist, but the Delphic Apolloignorant of this art? But these things are decent comparedwith the more shameful things. What was thought of Jupiterhimself by those who placed his wet nurse in the Capitol?Did they not bear witness to Euhemerus, who, not with thegarrulity of a fable-teller, but with the gravity of an historianwho had diligently investigated the matter, wrote that all suchgods had been men and mortals? And they who appointedthe Epulones as parasites at the table of Jupiter, what else didthey wish for but mimic sacred rites? For if any mimic hadsaid that parasites of Jupiter were made use of at his table,he would assuredly have appeared to be seeking to call forthlaughter. Varro said it,—not when he was mocking, but whenhe was commending the gods did he say it. His books ondivine, not on human, things testify that he wrote this,—not where he set forth the scenic games, but where he explained the Capitoline laws. In a word, he is conquered, andconfesses that, as they made the gods with a human form, sothey believed that they are delighted with human pleasures.For also malign spirits were not so wanting to their ownbusiness as not to confirm noxious opinions in the minds ofmen by converting them into sport. Whence also is thatstory about the sacristan of Hercules, which says that, havingnothing to do, he took to playing at dice as a pastime, throwing them alternately with the one hand for Hercules, with theother for himself, with this understanding, that if he shouldwin, he should from the funds of the temple prepare himselfa supper, and hire a mistress; but if Hercules should winthe game, he himself should, at his own expense, provide thesame for the pleasure of Hercules. Then, when he had beenbeaten by himself, as though by Hercules, he gave to the godHercules the supper he owed him, and also the most nobleharlot Larentina. But she, having fallen asleep in the temple,dreamed that Hercules had had intercourse with her, and hadsaid to her that she would find her payment with the youthwhom she should first meet on leaving the temple, and thatshe was to believe this to be paid to her by Hercules. Andso the first youth that met her on going out was the wealthyBOOK VI. ] ABOMINATION OF THE CIVIL THEOLOGY. 245Tarutius, who kept her a long time, and when he died left herhis heir. She, having obtained a most ample fortune, that sheshould not seem ungrateful for the divine hire, in her turnmade the Roman people her heir, which she thought to bemost acceptable to the deities; and, having disappeared, thewill was found. By which meritorious conduct they say thatshe gained divine honours.Now had these things been feigned by the poets and actedby the mimics, they would without any doubt have been saidto pertain to the fabulous theology, and would have been judgedworthy to be separated from the dignity of the civil theology.But when these shameful things, —not of the poets, but of thepeople; not of the mimics, but of the sacred things; not ofthe theatres, but of the temples, that is, not of the fabulous,but of the civil theology,-are reported by so great an author,not in vain do the actors represent with theatrical art thebaseness of the gods, which is so great; but surely in vain dothe priests attempt, by rites called sacred, to represent theirnobleness of character, which has no existence. There aresacred rites of Juno; and these are celebrated in her belovedisland, Samos, where she was given in marriage to Jupiter.There are sacred rites of Ceres, in which Proserpine is soughtfor, having been carried off by Pluto. There are sacred ritesof Venus, in which, her beloved Adonis being slain by a boar'stooth, the lovely youth is lamented. There are sacred rites ofthe mother of the gods, in which the beautiful youth Atys,loved by her, and castrated by her through a woman's jealousy,is deplored by men who have suffered the like calamity, whomthey call Galli. Since, then, these things are more unseemlythan all scenic abomination, why is it that they strive toseparate, as it were, the fabulous fictions of the poet concerning the gods, as, forsooth, pertaining to the theatre, from thecivil theology which they wish to belong to the city, as thoughthey were separating from noble and worthy things, things unworthy and base? Wherefore there is more reason to thankthe stage-actors, who have spared the eyes of men, and havenot laid bare by theatrical exhibition all the things which arehid by the walls of the temples. What good is to be thoughtof their sacred rites which are concealed in darkness, when246 [BOOK VI.THE CITY OF GOD.those which are brought forth into the light are so detestable?And certainly they themselves have seen what they transactin secret through the agency of mutilated and effeminate men.Yet they have not been able to conceal those same men miserably and vilely enervated and corrupted. Let them persuadewhom they can that they transact anything holy through suchmen, who, they cannot deny, are numbered, and live amongtheir sacred things. We know not what they transact, butwe know through whom they transact; for we know whatthings are transacted on the stage, where never, even in achorus of harlots, hath one who is mutilated or an effeminateappeared. And, nevertheless, even these things are acted byvile and infamous characters; for, indeed, they ought not tobe acted by men of good character. What, then, are thosesacred rites, for the performance of which holiness has chosensuch men as not even the obscenity of the stage has admitted?8. Concerning the interpretations, consisting of natural explanations, which thepagan teachers attempt to showfor their gods.But all these things, they say, have certain physical, thatis, natural interpretations, showing their natural meaning;as though in this disputation we were seeking physics andnot theology, which is the account, not of nature, but of God.For although He who is the true God is God, not by opinion,but by nature, nevertheless all nature is not God; for thereis certainly a nature of man, of a beast, of a tree, of a stone,-none of which is God. For if, when the question is concerning the mother of the gods, that from which the whole.system of interpretation starts certainly is, that the mother ofthe gods is the earth, why do we make further inquiry? whydo we carry our investigation through all the rest of it?What can more manifestly favour them who say that all thosegods were men? For they are earth-born in the sense thatthe earth is their mother. But in the true theology the earthis the work, not the mother, of God. But in whatever waytheir sacred rites may be interpreted, and whatever referencethey may have to the nature of things, it is not according tonature, but contrary to nature, that men should be effeminates.This disease, this crime, this abomination, has a recognisedplace among those sacred things, though even depraved menBOOK VI. ] RELATION OF CIVIL TO NATURAL THEOLOGY. 247will scarcely be compelled by torments to confess they areguilty of it. Again, if these sacred rites, which are proved tobe fouler than scenic abominations, are excused and justifiedon the ground that they have their own interpretations, bywhich they are shown to symbolize the nature of things, whyare not the poetical things in like manner excused and justified?For many have interpreted even these in like fashion, to sucha degree that even that which they say is the most monstrousand most horrible,—namely, that Saturn devoured his ownchildren, has been interpreted by some of them to meanthat length of time, which is signified by the name of Saturn,consumes whatever it begets; or that, as the same Varrothinks, Saturn belongs to seeds which fall back again into theearth from whence they spring.one way, and one in another.of all the rest of this theology.And so one interprets it inAnd the same is to be saidAnd, nevertheless, it is called the fabulous theology, and iscensured, cast off, rejected, together with all such interpretations belonging to it. And not only by the natural theology,which is that of the philosophers, but also by this civil theology,concerning which we are speaking, which is asserted to pertainto cities and peoples, it is judged worthy of repudiation, because it has invented unworthy things concerning the gods.Of which, I wot, this is the secret: that those most acute andlearned men, by whom those things were written, understoodthat both theologies ought to be rejected , to wit, both thatfabulous and this civil one, but the former they dared toreject, the latter they dared not; the former thay set forth tobe censured, the latter they showed to be very like it; not thatit might be chosen to be held in preference to the other,but that it might be understood to be worthy of being rejectedtogether with it. And thus, without danger to those whofeared to censure the civil theology, both of them being broughtinto contempt, that theology which they call natural mightfind a place in better disposed minds; for the civil and thefabulous are both fabulous and both civil. He who shallwisely inspect the vanities and obscenities of both will findthat they are both fabulous; and he who shall direct hisattention to the scenic plays pertaining to the fabulous theo-248 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VI. .logy in the festivals of the civil gods, and in the divine ritesof the cities, will find they are both civil. How, then, canthe power of giving eternal life be attributed to any of thosegods whose own images and sacred rites convict them of beingmost like to the fabulous gods, which are most openly reprobated, in forms, ages, sex, characteristics, marriages, generations,rites; in all which things they are understood either to havebeen men, and to have had their sacred rites and solemnitiesinstituted in their honour according to the life or death ofeach of them, the demons suggesting and confirming this error,or certainly most foul spirits, who, taking advantage of someoccasion or other, have stolen into the minds of men to deceivethem?9. Concerning the special offices ofthe gods.And as to those very offices of the gods, so meanly and sominutely portioned out, so that they say that they ought to besupplicated, each one according to his special function,—aboutwhich we have spoken much already, though not all that is tobe said concerning it, are they not more consistent withmimic buffoonery than divine majesty? If any one shoulduse two nurses for his infant, one of whom should give nothingbut food, the other nothing but drink, as these make use oftwo goddesses for this purpose, Educa and Potina, he shouldcertainly seem to be foolish, and to do in his house a thingworthy of a mimic. They would have Liber to have beennamed from " liberation," because through him males at thetime of copulation are liberated by the emission of the seed.They also say that Libera (the same in their opinion as Venus)exercises the same function in the case of women, because theysay that they also emit seed; and they also say that on thisaccount the same part of the male and of the female is placedin the temple, that of the male to Liber, and that of the femaleto Libera. To these things they add the women assigned toLiber, and the wine for exciting lust. Thus the Bacchanaliaare celebrated with the utmost insanity, with respect to whichVarro himself confesses that such things would not be doneby the Bacchanals except their minds were highly excited.These things, however, afterwards displeased a saner senate,and it ordered them to be discontinued. Here, at length, theyBOOK VI. ]SPECIAL OFFICES OF THE GODS. 249perhaps perceived how much power unclean spirits, when heldto be gods, exercise over the minds of men. These things,certainly, were not to be done in the theatres; for there theyplay, not rave, although to have gods who are delighted withsuch plays is very like raving.But what kind of distinction is this which he makes betweenthe religious and the superstitious man, saying that the godsare feared¹ by the superstitious man, but are reverenced² asparents by the religious man, not feared as enemies; and thatthey are all so good that they will more readily spare thosewho are impious than hurt one who is innocent? And yet hetells us that three gods are assigned as guardians to a womanafter she has been delivered, lest the god Silvanus come inand molest her; and that in order to signify the presence ofthese protectors, three men go round the house during the night,and first strike the threshold with a hatchet, next with a pestle,and the third time sweep it with a brush, in order that thesesymbols of agriculture having been exhibited, the god Silvanusmight be hindered from entering, because neither are trees cutdown or pruned without a hatchet, neither is grain groundwithout a pestle, nor corn heaped up without a besom. Nowfrom these three things three gods have been named: Intercidona, from the cut³ made by the hatchet; Pilumnus, from thepestle; Diverra, from the besom;-by which guardian gods thewoman who has been delivered is preserved against the powerof the god Silvanus. Thus the guardianship of kindly-disposedgods would not avail against the malice of a mischievous god,unless they were three to one, and fought against him, as itwere, with the opposing emblems of cultivation, who, being aninhabitant of the woods, is rough, horrible, and uncultivated.Is this the innocence of the gods? Is this their concord?Are these the health- giving deities of the cities, more ridiculousthan the things which are laughed at in the theatres?When a male and a female are united, the god Jugatinus presides. Well, let this be borne with. But the married womanmust be brought home: the god Domiducus also is invoked.That she may be in the house, the god Domitius is introduced.That she may remain with her husband, the goddess Man3 Intercido, I cut or cleave. 1 Timeri. * Vereri.250 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VI. .2turnæ is used. What more is required? Let human modestybe spared. Let the lust of flesh and blood go on with therest, the secret of shame being respected. Why is the bedchamber filled with a crowd of deites, when even the groomsmen¹ have departed? And, moreover, it is so filled, not thatin consideration of their presence more regard may be paid tochastity, but that by their help the woman, naturally of theweaker sex, and trembling with the novelty of her situation,may the more readily yield her virginity. For there are thegoddess Virginiensis, and the god- father Subigus, and thegoddess-mother Prema, and the goddess Pertunda, and Venus,and Priapus. What is this? If it was absolutely necessarythat a man, labouring at this work, should be helped by thegods, might not some one god or goddess have been sufficient?Was Venus not sufficient alone, who is even said to be namedfrom this, that without her power a woman does not cease tobe a virgin? If there is any shame in men, which is not inthe deities, is it not the case that, when the married couplebelieve that so many gods of either sex are present, and busyat this work, they are so much affected with shame, that theman is less moved, and the woman more reluctant? Andcertainly, if the goddess Virginiensis is present to loose thevirgin's zone, if the god Subigus is present that the virginmay be got under the man, if the goddess Prema is presentthat, having been got under him, she may be kept down, andmay not move herself, what has the goddess Pertunda to dothere? Let her blush; let her go forth. Let the husbandhimself do something. It is disgraceful that any one but himself should do that from which she gets her name. But perhaps she is tolerated because she is said to be a goddess, andnot a god. For if she were believed to be a male, and werecalled Pertundus, the husband would demand more help againsthim for the chastity of his wife than the newly- deliveredwoman against Silvanus. But why am I saying this, whenPriapus, too, is there, a male to excess, upon whose immenseand most unsightly member the newly-married bride is com1Paranymphi.2 Comp. Tertullian, Adv. Nat. ii. 11; Arnobius, Contrà Gent. iv.; Lactantius,Inst. i. 20.BOOK VI. ] RELATION OF CIVIL TO FABULOUS THEOLOGY. 251manded to sit, according to the most honourable and mostreligious custom of matrons?Let them go on, and let them attempt with all the subtletythey can to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous,the cities from the theatres, the temples from the stages, thesacred things of the priests from the songs of the poets,as honourable things from base things, truthful things fromfallacious, grave from light, serious from ludicrous, desirablethings from things to be rejected, we understand what theydo. They are aware that that theatrical and fabulous theologyhangs by the civil, and is reflected back upon it from the songsof the poets as from a mirror; and thus, that theology havingbeen exposed to view which they do not dare to condemn, theymore freely assail and censure that picture of it, in order thatthose who perceive what they mean may detest this very faceitself of which that is the picture,-which, however, the godsthemselves, as though seeing themselves in the same mirror,love so much, that it is better seen in both of them who andwhat they are. Whence, also, they have compelled their worshippers, with terrible commands, to dedicate to them the uncleanness of the fabulous theology, to put them among theirsolemnities, and reckon them among divine things; and thusthey have both shown themselves more manifestly to be mostimpure spirits, and have made that rejected and reprobatedtheatrical theology a member and a part of this, as it were ,chosen and approved theology of the city, so that, though thewhole is disgraceful and false, and contains in it fictitiousgods, one part of it is in the literature of the priests, the otherin the songs of the poets. Whether it may have other partsis another question. At present, I think, I have sufficientlyshown, on account of the division of Varro, that the theologyof the city and that of the theatre belong to one civil theology.Wherefore, because they are both equally disgraceful, absurd,shameful, false, far be it from religious men to hope for eternallife from either the one or the other.In fine, even Varro himself, in his account and enumerationof the gods, starts from the moment of a man's conception.He commences the series of those gods who take charge ofman with Janus, carries it on to the death of the man de-252 [BOOK VI. THE CITY OF GOD.crepit with age, and terminates it with the goddess Nænia,who is sung at the funerals of the aged. After that, he beginsto give an account of the other gods, whose province is notman himself, but man's belongings, as food, clothing, and allthat is necessary for this life; and, in the case of all these,he explains what is the special office of each, and for whateach ought to be supplicated. But with all this scrupulousand comprehensive diligence, he has neither proved the existence, nor so much as mentioned the name, of any god fromwhom eternal life is to be sought, the one object for whichwe are Christians. Who, then, is so stupid as not to perceivethat this man, by setting forth and opening up so diligentlythe civil theology, and by exhibiting its likeness to that fabulous, shameful, and disgraceful theology, and also by teachingthat that fabulous sort is also a part of this other, was labouring to obtain a place in the minds of men for none but thatnatural theology which he says pertains to philosophers, withsuch subtlety that he censures the fabulous, and, not daringopenly to censure the civil, shows its censurable character bysimply exhibiting it; and thus, both being reprobated by thejudgment of men of right understanding, the natural alone remains to be chosen? But concerning this in its own place, bythe help of the true God, we have to discuss more diligently.10. Concerning the liberty of Seneca, who more vehemently censured the civiltheology than Varro did the fabulous.That liberty, in truth, which this man wanted, so thathe did not dare to censure that theology of the city, whichis very similar to the theatrical, so openly as he did thetheatrical itself, was, though not fully, yet in part possessedby Annæus Seneca, whom we have some evidence to show tohave flourished in the times of our apostles. It was in partpossessed by him, I say, for he possessed it in writing, butnot in living. For in that book which he wrote againstsuperstition, he more copiously and vehemently censuredthat civil and urban theology than Varro the theatrical andfabulous. For, when speaking concerning images, he says,"They dedicate images of the sacred and inviolable immortalsin most worthless and motionless matter. They give them¹ Mentioned also by Tertullian, Apol. 12, but not extant.BOOK VI . ] SENECA ON THE CIVIL THEOLOGY. 253the appearance of man, beasts, and fishes, and some makethem of mixed sex, and heterogeneous bodies. They callthem deities, when they are such that if they should getbreath and should suddenly meet them, they would be heldto be monsters." Then, a while afterwards, when extollingthe natural theology, he had expounded the sentiments ofcertain philosophers, he opposes to himself a question, andsays, " Here some one says, Shall I believe that the heavensand the earth are gods, and that some are above the moonand some below it? Shall I bring forward either Plato or theperipatetic Strato, one of whom made God to be without abody, the other without a mind?" In answer to which hesays, " And, really, what truer do the dreams of Titus Tatius,or Romulus, or Tullus Hostilius appear to thee? Tatius declared the divinity of the goddess Cloacina; Romulus that ofPicus and Tiberinus; Tullus Hostilius that of Pavor and Pallor,the most disagreeable affections of men, the one of whichis the agitation of the mind under fright, the other that of thebody, not a disease, indeed, but a change of colour." Wiltthou rather believe that these are deities, and receive theminto heaven? But with what freedom he has written concerning the rites themselves, cruel and shameful! " One,"he says, " castrates himself, another cuts his arms. Wherewill they find room for the fear of these gods when angry,who use such means of gaining their favour when propitious?But gods who wish to be worshipped in this fashion shouldbe worshipped in none. So great is the frenzy of the mindwhen perturbed and driven from its seat, that the gods arepropitiated by men in a manner in which not even men ofthe greatest ferocity and fable- renowned cruelty vent theirrage. Tyrants have lacerated the limbs of some; they neverordered any one to lacerate his own. For the gratification ofroyal lust, some have been castrated; but no one ever, bythe command of his lord, laid violent hands on himself toemasculate himself. They kill themselves in the temples.They supplicate with their wounds and with their blood. Itany one has time to see the things they do and the things.they suffer, he will find so many things unseemly for men ofrespectability, so unworthy of freemen, so unlike the doings254 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VI. .of sane men, that no one would doubt that they are mad, hadthey been mad with the minority; but now the multitude ofthe insane is the defence of their sanity.""(He next relates those things which are wont to be donein the Capitol, and with the utmost intrepidity insists thatthey are such things as one could only believe to be doneby men making sport, or by madmen. For, having spokenwith derision of this, that in the Egyptian sacred rites Osiris,being lost, is lamented for, but straightway, when found, isthe occasion of great joy by his reappearance, because boththe losing and the finding of him are feigned; and yet thatgrief and that joy which are elicited thereby from those whohave lost nothing and found nothing are real; —having, I say,so spoken of this, he says, ' Still there is a fixed time forthis frenzy. It is tolerable to go mad once in the year. Gointo the Capitol. One is suggesting divine commands¹ to agod; another is telling the hours to Jupiter; one is a lictor;another is an anointer, who with the mere movement of hisarms imitates one anointing. There are women who arrangethe hair of Juno and Minerva, standing far away not onlyfrom her image, but even from her temple. These move theirfingers in the manner of hair-dressers. There are some womenwho hold a mirror. There are some who are calling the godsto assist them in court. There are some who are holding updocuments to them, and are explaining to them their cases.A learned and distinguished comedian, now old and decrepit,was daily playing the mimic in the Capitol, as though the godswould gladly be spectators of that which men had ceased tocare about. Every kind of artificers working for the immortalgods is dwelling there in idleness." And a little after he says,"Nevertheless these, though they give themselves up to thegods for purposes superfluous enough, do not do so for anyabominable or infamous purpose. There sit certain women inthe Capitol who think they are beloved by Jupiter; nor arethey frightened even by the look of the, if you will believethe poets, most wrathful Juno."1 Numina. Another reading is nomina; and with either reading another translation is admissible: " One is announcing to a god the names ( or gods) who salute him. "BOOK VI. ] SENECA'S CONTEMPT OF POPULAR OPINION.255This liberty Varro did not enjoy. It was only the poeticaltheology he seemed to censure. The civil, which this mancuts to pieces, he was not bold enough to impugn. But if weattend to the truth, the temples where these things are performed are far worse than the theatres where they are represented. Whence, with respect to these sacred rites of thecivil theology, Seneca preferred, as the best course to be followed by a wise man, to feign respect for them in act, but tohave no real regard for them at heart. " All which things,"he says, " a wise man will observe as being commanded bythe laws, but not as being pleasing to the gods." And a littleafter he says, " And what of this, that we unite the gods inmarriage, and that not even naturally, for we join brothersand sisters? We marry Bellona to Mars, Venus to Vulcan,Salacia to Neptune. Some of them we leave unmarried, asthough there were no match for them, which is surely needless, especially when there are certain unmarried goddesses,as Populonia, or Fulgora, or the goddess Rumina, for whomI am not astonished that suitors have been awanting. Allthis ignoble crowd of gods, which the superstition of ages hasamassed, we ought," he says, " to adore in such a way as to remember all the while that its worship belongs rather to customthan to reality." Wherefore, neither those laws nor customsinstituted in the civil theology that which was pleasing to thegods, or which pertained to reality. But this man, whomphilosophy had made, as it were, free, nevertheless, becausehe was an illustrious senator of the Roman people, worshipped what he censured, did what he condemned, adoredwhat he reproached, because, forsooth, philosophy had taughthim something great, -namely, not to be superstitious in theworld, but, on account of the laws of cities and the customsof men, to be an actor, not on the stage, but in the temples,-conduct the more to be condemned, that those things whichhe was deceitfully acting he so acted that the people thoughthe was acting sincerely. But a stage-actor would ratherdelight people by acting plays than take them in by falsepretences.11. What Seneca thought concerning the Jews.Seneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology,256 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VI..also found fault with the sacred things of the Jews, andespecially the sabbaths, affirming that they act uselessly inkeeping those seventh days, whereby they lose through idleness about the seventh part of their life, and also manythings which demand immediate attention are damaged. TheChristians, however, who were already most hostile to theJews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame,lest, if he praised them, he should do so against the ancientcustom of his country, or, perhaps, if he should blame them,he should do so against his own will.“When he was speaking concerning those Jews, he said,'When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nationhave gained such strength that they have been now received inall lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors. "By these words he expresses his astonishment; and, not knowing what the providence of God was leading him to say, subjoins in plain words an opinion by which he showed whathe thought about the meaning of those sacred institutions:"For," he says, " those, however, know the cause of their rites,whilst the greater part of the people know not why they perform theirs." But concerning the solemnities of the Jews,either why or how far they were instituted by divine authority, and afterwards, in due time, by the same authority takenaway from the people of God, to whom the mystery of eternallife was revealed, we have both spoken elsewhere, especiallywhen we were treating against the Manichæans, and also intendto speak in this work in a more suitable place.12. That when once the vanity of the gods of the nations has been exposed, itcannot be doubted that they are unable to bestow eternal life on any one,when they cannot afford help even with respect to the things ofthis temporallife.Now, since there are three theologies, which the Greekscall respectively mythical, physical, and political, and whichmay be called in Latin fabulous, natural, and civil; and sinceneither from the fabulous, which even the worshippers ofmany and false gods have themselves most freely censured,nor from the civil, of which that is convicted of being a part,or even worse than it, can eternal life be hoped for from anyof these theologies, if any one thinks that what has beenBOOK VI. ]CONCLUSION. 257said in this book is not enough for him, let him also add toit the many and various dissertations concerning God as thegiver of felicity, contained in the former books, especially thefourth one.For to what but to felicity should men consecrate themselves, were felicity a goddess? However, as it is not agoddess, but a gift of God, to what God but the giver ofhappiness ought we to consecrate ourselves, who piously loveeternal life, in which there is true and full felicity? But Ithink, from what has been said, no one ought to doubt thatnone of those gods is the giver of happiness, who are worshipped with such shame, and who, if they are not so worshipped, are more shamefully enraged, and thus confess thatthey are most foul spirits. Moreover, how can he give eternallife who cannot give happiness? For we mean by eternal lifethat life where there is endless happiness. For if the soullive in eternal punishments, by which also those uncleanspirits shall be tormented, that is rather eternal death thaneternal life. For there is no greater or worse death thanwhen death never dies. But because the soul from its verynature, being created immortal, cannot be without some kindof life, its utmost death is alienation from the life of God inan eternity of punishment. So, then, He only who gives truehappiness gives eternal life, that is, an endlessly happy life.And since those gods whom this civil theology worships havebeen proved to be unable to give this happiness, they oughtnot to be worshipped on account of those temporal and terrestrial things, as we showed in the five former books, much lesson account of eternal life, which is to be after death, aswe have sought to show in this one book especially, whilstthe other books also lend it their co-operation. But since thestrength of inveterate habit has its roots very deep, if any onethinks that I have not disputed sufficiently to show that thiscivil theology ought to be rejected and shunned, let him attendto another book which, with God's help, is to be joined to thisone.VOL. L R258 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VII. .BOOK SEVENTH.ARGUMENT.66 IN THIS BOOK IT IS SHOWN THAT ETERNAL LIFE IS NOT OBTAINED BY THEWORSHIP OF JANUS, JUPITER, SATURN, AND THE OTHERTHE CIVIL THEOLOGY.SELECT GODS OFPREFACE.ITT will be the duty of those who are endowed with quickerand better understandings, in whose case the former booksare sufficient, and more than sufficient, to effect their intendedobject, to bear with me with patience and equanimity whilstI attempt with more than ordinary diligence to tear up anderadicate depraved and ancient opinions hostile to the truthof piety, which the long-continued error of the human racehas fixed very deeply in unenlightened minds; co- operatingalso in this, according to my little measure, with the grace ofHim who, being the true God, is able to accomplish it, andon whose help I depend in my work; and, for the sake ofothers, such should not deem superfluous what they feel to beno longer necessary for themselves. A very great matter isat stake when the true and truly holy divinity is commendedto men as that which they ought to seek after and to worship; not, however, on account of the transitory vapour ofmortal life, but on account of life eternal, which alone isblessed, although the help necessary for this frail life we arenow living is also afforded us by it.1. Whether, since it is evident that Deity is not to be found in the civil theology,we are to believe that it is to be found in the select gods.If there is any one whom the sixth book, which I have lastfinished, has not persuaded that this divinity, or, so to speak,deity for this word also our authors do not hesitate to use,in order to translate more accurately that which the Greekscall Ocóτns; it there is any one, I say, whom the sixth bookhas not persuaded that this divinity or deity is not to beBOOK VII. ] THE SELECT GODS. 259found in that theology which they call civil, and whichMarcus Varro has explained in sixteen books,—that is, thatthe happiness of eternal life is not attainable through theworship of gods such as states have established to be worshipped, and that in such a form,—perhaps, when he has readthis book, he will not have anything further to desire in orderto the clearing up of this question. For it is possible thatsome one may think that at least the select and chief gods,whom Varro comprised in his last book, and of whom we havenot spoken sufficiently, are to be worshipped on account ofthe blessed life, which is none other than eternal. In respectto which matter I do not say what Tertullian said, perhapsmore wittily than truly, " If gods are selected like onions,certainly the rest are rejected as bad. " I do not say this,for I see that even from among the select, some are selectedfor some greater and more excellent office: as in warfare,when recruits have been elected, there are some again electedfrom among those for the performance of some greater militaryservice; and in the church, when persons are elected to beoverseers, certainly the rest are not rejected, since all good.Christians are deservedly called elect; in the erection of abuilding corner stones are elected, though the other stones, whichare destined for other parts of the structure, are not rejected;grapes are elected for eating, whilst the others, which we leavefor drinking, are not rejected. There is no need of adducingmany illustrations, since the thing is evident. Wherefore theselection of certain gods from among many affords no properreason why either he who wrote on this subject, or the worshippers of the gods, or the gods themselves, should be spurned.We ought rather to seek to know what gods these are, and forwhat purpose they may appear to have been selected.2. Who are the select gods, and whether they are held to be exemptfrom theoffices ofthe commoner gods.The following gods, certainly, Varro signalizes as select,devoting one book to this subject: Janus, Jupiter, Saturn,Genius, Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, Neptune, Sol, Orcus,father Liber, Tellus, Ceres, Juno, Luna, Diana, Minerva, Venus,¹ Tert. Apol. 13, " Nec electio sine reprobatione; " and Ad Nationes, ii. 9," Si dei ut bulbi seliguntur, qui non seliguntur, reprobi pronuntiantur. ”260 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK VII. .Vesta; of which twenty gods, twelve are males, and eightfemales. Whether are these deities called select, because oftheir higher spheres of administration in the world, or becausethey have become better known to the people, and more worship has been expended on them? If it be on account of thegreater works which are performed by them in the world, weought not to have found them among that, as it were, plebeiancrowd of deities, which has assigned to it the charge of minuteand trifling things. For, first of all, at the conception of afœtus, from which point all the works commence which havebeen distributed in minute detail to many deities, Janus himself opens the way for the reception of the seed; there alsois Saturn, on account of the seed itself; there is Liber,¹ wholiberates the male by the effusion of the seed; there is Libera,whom they also would have to be Venus, who confers thissame benefit on the woman, namely, that she also be liberatedby the emission of the seed;-all these are of the numberof those who are called select. But there is also the goddessMena, who presides over the menses; though the daughterof Jupiter, ignoble nevertheless. And this province of themenses the same author, in his book on the select gods, assignsto Juno herself, who is even queen among the select gods; andhere, as Juno Lucina, along with the same Mena, her stepdaughter, she presides over the same blood. There also aretwo gods, exceedingly obscure, Vitumnus and Sentinus-theone of whom imparts life to the foetus, and the other sensation; and, of a truth, they bestow, most ignoble though theybe, far more than all those noble and select gods bestow. For,surely, without life and sensation, what is the whole foetuswhich a woman carries in her womb, but a most vile andworthless thing, no better than slime and dust?3. How there is no reason which can be shown for the selection of certain gods,when the administration of more exalted offices is assigned to many inferiorgods.What is the cause, therefore, which has driven so manyselect gods to these very small works, in which they areexcelled by Vitumnus and Sentinus, though little known and1 Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. , distinguishes this Liber from Liber Bacchus, sonofJupiter and Semele.BOOK VII. ] DEGRADING OFFICES OF SELECT GODS. 261sunk in obscurity, inasmuch as they confer the munificentgifts of life and sensation? For the select Janus bestows anentrance, and, as it were, a door for the seed; the selectSaturn bestows the seed itself; the select Liber bestows onmen the emission of the same seed; Libera, who is Ceres orVenus, confers the same on women; the select Juno confers(not alone, but together with Mena, the daughter of Jupiter)the menses, for the growth of that which has been conceived;and the obscure and ignoble Vitumnus confers life, whilst theobscure and ignoble Sentinus confers sensation; —which twolast things are as much more excellent than the others, asthey themselves are excelled by reason and intellect. For asthose things which reason and understand are preferable tothose which, without intellect and reason, as in the case ofcattle, live and feel; so also those things which have beenendowed with life and sensation are deservedly preferred tothose things which neither live nor feel. Therefore Vitumnusthe life-giver, and Sentinus the sense-giver, ought to havebeen reckoned among the select gods, rather than Janus theadmitter of seed, and Saturn the giver or sower of seed, andLiber and Libera the movers and liberators of seed; whichseed is not worth a thought, unless it attain to life and sensation. Yet these select gifts are not given by select gods, butby certain unknown, and, considering their dignity, neglectedgods. But if it be replied that Janus has dominion over allbeginnings, and therefore the opening of the way for conception is not without reason assigned to him; and that Saturnhas dominion over all seeds, and therefore the sowing of theseed whereby a human being is generated cannot be excludedfrom his operation; that Liber and Libera have power over theemission of all seeds, and therefore preside over those seedswhich pertain to the procreation of men; that Juno presidesover all purgations and births, and therefore she has alsocharge of the purgations of women and the births of humanbeings;-if they give this reply, let them find an answer tothe question concerning Vitumnus and Sentinus, whether theyare willing that these likewise should have dominion over allthings which live and feel. If they grant this, let them1 Januam. 2 Vivificator. 3 Sensificator.262 [BOOK VII.THE CITY OF GOD.observe in how sublime a position they are about to placethem. For to spring from seeds is in the earth and of theearth, but to live and feel are supposed to be properties evenof the sidereal gods. But if they say that only such thingsas come to life in flesh, and are supported by senses, areassigned to Sentinus, why does not that God who made allthings live and feel, bestow on flesh also life and sensation,in the universality of His operation conferring also on fœtusesthis gift? And what, then, is the use of Vitumnus and Sentinus? But if these, as it were, extreme and lowest thingshave been committed by Him who presides universally overlife and sense to these gods as to servants, are these selectgods then so destitute of servants, that they could not find anyto whom even they might commit those things, but with alltheir dignity, for which they are, it seems, deemed worthy tobe selected, were compelled to perform their work along withignoble ones? Juno is select queen of the gods, and thesister and wife of Jupiter; nevertheless she is Iterduca, theconductor, to boys, and performs this work along with a mostignoble pair the goddesses Abeona and Adeona. There theyhave also placed the goddess Mena, who gives to boys a goodmind, and she is not placed among the select gods; as if anything greater could be bestowed on a man than a good mind.But Juno is placed among the select because she is Iterduca and Domiduca (she who conducts one on a journey, andwho conducts him home again); as if it is of any advantagefor one to make a journey, and to be conducted home again, ifhis mind is not good. And yet the goddess who bestows thatgift has not been placed by the selectors among the selectgods, though she ought indeed to have been preferred even toMinerva, to whom, in this minute distribution of work, theyhave allotted the memory of boys. For who will doubt thatit is a far better thing to have a good mind, than ever so greata memory? For no one is bad who has a good mind;¹ butsome who are very bad are possessed of an admirable memory,and are so much the worse, the less they are able to forgetthe bad things which they think. And yet Minerva is amongthe select gods, whilst the goddess Mena is hidden by a worth-¹ As we say, " right-minded. "BOOK VII . ] SELECT GODS INCONSISTENTLY SELECTED. 263less crowd. What shall I say concerning Virtus? What concerning Felicitas?-concerning whom I have already spokenmuch in the fourth book; ¹ to whom, though they held themto be goddesses, they have not thought fit to assign a placeamong the select gods, among whom they have given a placeto Mars and Orcus, the one the causer of death, the other thereceiver of the dead.Since, therefore, we see that even the select gods themselveswork together with the others, like a senate with the people,in all those minute works which have been minutely portionedout among many gods; and since we find that far greater andbetter things are administered by certain gods who have notbeen reckoned worthy to be selected than by those who arecalled select, it remains that we suppose that they were calledselect and chief, not on account of their holding more exaltedoffices in the world, but because it happened to them to becomebetter known to the people. And even Varro himself says,that in that way obscurity had fallen to the lot of some fathergods and mother goddesses, as it falls to the lot of men. If,therefore, Felicity ought not perhaps to have been put amongthe select gods, because they did not attain to that noble position by merit, but by chance, Fortune at least should have beenplaced among them, or rather before them; for they say thatthat goddess distributes to every one the gifts she receives,not according to any rational arrangement, but according aschance may determine. She ought to have held the uppermostplace among the select gods, for among them chiefly it is thatshe shows what power she has. For we see that they havebeen selected not on account of some eminent virtue or rationalhappiness, but by that random power of Fortune which theworshippers of these gods think that she exerts. For that mosteloquent man Sallust also may perhaps have the gods themselves in view when he says: " But, in truth, fortune rules ineverything; it renders all things famous or obscure, accordingto caprice rather than according to truth."" For they cannot¹ Ch. 21 , 23.2 The father Saturn, and the motherOps, e.g. , being more obscure than theirson Jupiter and daughter Juno.3 Sallust, Cat. Conj. ch. 8.264 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VII. .discover a reason why Venus should have been made famous,whilst Virtus has been made obscure, when the divinity of bothof them has been solemnly recognised by them, and their meritsare not to be compared. Again, if she has deserved a nobleposition on account of the fact that she is much sought afterfor there are more who seek after Venus than after Virtus—why has Minerva been celebrated whilst Pecunia has beenleft in obscurity, although throughout the whole human raceavarice allures a far greater number than skill? And evenamong those who are skilled in the arts, you will rarely finda man who does not practise his own art for the purpose ofpecuniary gain; and that for the sake of which anything ismade, is always valued more than that which is made for thesake of something else. If, then, this selection of gods hasbeen made by the judgment of the foolish multitude, why hasnot the goddess Pecunia been preferred to Minerva, since thereare many artificers for the sake of money? But if this distinction has been made by the few wise, why has Virtus beenpreferred to Venus, when reason by far prefers the former?At all events, as I have already said, Fortune herself-who,according to those who attribute most influence to her, rendersall things famous or obscure according to caprice rather thanaccording to the truth-since she has been able to exercise somuch power even over the gods, as, according to her capriciousjudgment, to render those of them famous whom she would,and those obscure whom she would; Fortune herself ought tooccupy the place of pre- eminence among the select gods, sinceover them also she has such pre-eminent power. Or mustwe suppose that the reason why she is not among the selectis simply this, that even Fortune herself has had an adversefortune? She was adverse, then, to herself, since, whilst ennobling others, she herself has remained obscure.4. Theinferior gods, whose names are not associated with infamy, have been betterdealt with than the select gods, whose infamies are celebrated.However, any one who eagerly seeks for celebrity and renown, might congratulate those select gods, and call themfortunate, were it not that he saw that they have been selectedmore to their injury than to their honour. For that lowcrowd of gods have been protected by their very meannessBOOK VII. ] SELECT GODS THE MOST INFAMOUS. 265and obscurity from being overwhelmed with infamy. Welaugh, indeed, when we see them distributed by the merefiction of human opinions, according to the special worksassigned to them, like those who farm small portions of thepublic revenue, or like workmen in the street of the silversmiths, where one vessel, in order that it may go out perfect,passes through the hands of many, when it might have beenfinished by one perfect workman. But the only reason whythe combined skill of many workmen was thought necessary,was, that it is better that each part of an art should be learnedby a special workman, which can be done speedily and easily,than that they should all be compelled to be perfect in oneart throughout all its parts, which they could only attainslowly and with difficulty. Nevertheless there is scarcely tobe found one of the non-select gods who has brought infamyon himself by any crime, whilst there is scarce any one of theselect gods who has not received upon himself the brand ofnotable infamy. These latter have descended to the humbleworks of the others, whilst the others have not come up totheir sublime crimes. Concerning Janus, there does notreadily occur to my recollection anything infamous; andperhaps he was such an one as lived more innocently thanthe rest, and further removed from misdeeds and crimes. Hekindly received and entertained Saturn when he was fleeing;he divided his kingdom with his guest, so that each of themhad a city for himself,2-the one Janiculum, and the otherSaturnia. But those seekers after every kind of unseemlinessin the worship of the gods have disgraced him, whose life theyfound to be less disgraceful than that of the other gods, with animage of monstrous deformity, making it sometimes with twofaces, and sometimes, as it were, double, with four faces.3 Didthey wish that, as the most of the select gods had lost shame¹through the perpetration of shameful crimes, his greater innocence should be marked by a greater number of faces?51 Vicus argentarius.3 Quadrifrons.2 Virgil, Eneid, viii. 357, 358.4 Frons.5 “Quanto iste innocentior esset, tanto frontosior appareret; " being used forthe shamelessness of innocence, as we use " face " for the shamelessness of impudence.266 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK VII . .5. Concerning the more secret doctrine of the pagans, and concerning thephysical interpretations.But let us hear their own physical interpretations by whichthey attempt to colour, as with the appearance of profounderdoctrine, the baseness of most miserable error. Varro, in thefirst place, commends these interpretations so strongly as to say,that the ancients invented the images, badges, and adornmentsof the gods, in order that when those who went to the mysteriesshould see them with their bodily eyes, they might with the eyesof their mind see the soul of the world, and its parts, that is,the true gods; and also that the meaning which was intendedby those who made their images with the human form, seemedto be this, namely, that the mind of mortals, which is in ahuman body, is very like to the immortal mind, ' just as vesselsmight be placed to represent the gods, as, for instance, a winevessel might be placed in the temple of Liber, to signify wine,that which is contained being signified by that which contains.Thus by an image which had the human form the rationalsoul was signified, because the human form is the vessel, as itwere, in which that nature is wont to be contained which theyattribute to God, or to the gods. These are the mysteries ofdoctrine to which that most learned man penetrated in orderthat he might bring them forth to the light. But, O thoumost acute man, hast thou lost among those mysteries thatprudence which led thee to form the sober opinion, that thosewho first established those images for the people took awayfear from the citizens and added error, and that the ancientRomans honoured the gods more chastely without images?For it was through consideration of them that thou wastemboldened to speak these things against the later Romans.For if those most ancient Romans also had worshipped images,perhaps thou wouldst have suppressed by the silence of fearall those sentiments (true sentiments, nevertheless) concerningthe folly of setting up images, and wouldst have extolled moreloftily, and more loquaciously, those mysterious doctrines consisting of these vain and pernicious fictions. Thy soul, solearned and so clever (and for this I grieve much for thee),could never through these mysteries have reached its God; that1 Cicero, Tusc. Quæst. v. 13.BOOK VII. ]VARRO'S INTERPRETATIONS. 267is, the God by whom, not with whom, it was made, of whomit is not a part, but a work,—that God who is not the soul ofall things, but who made every soul, and in whose light aloneevery soul is blessed, if it be not ungrateful for His grace.But the things which follow in this book will show what isthe nature of these mysteries, and what value is to be set uponthem. Meanwhile, this most learned man confesses as hisopinion that the soul of the world and its parts are the truegods, from which we perceive that his theology (to wit, thatsame natural theology to which he pays great regard) has beenable, in its completeness, to extend itself even to the natureof the rational soul. For in this book (concerning the selectgods) he says a very few things by anticipation concerningthe natural theology; and we shall see whether he has beenable in that book, by means of physical interpretations, torefer to this natural theology that civil theology, concerningwhich he wrote last when treating of the select gods. Now,if he has been able to do this, the whole is natural; andin that case, what need was there for distinguishing so carefully the civil from the natural? But if it has been distinguished by a veritable distinction, then, since not even thisnatural theology with which he is so much pleased is true (forthough it has reached as far as the soul, it has not reached tothe true God who made the soul), how much more contemptible and false is that civil theology which is chiefly occupiedabout what is corporeal, as will be shown by its very interpretations, which they have with such diligence sought out andenucleated, some of which I must necessarily mention!6. Concerning the opinion of Varro, that God is the soul ofthe world, whichnevertheless, in its various parts, has many souls whose nature is divine.The same Varro, then, still speaking by anticipation, saysthat he thinks that God is the soul of the world (which theGreeks call kooμos), and that this world itself is God; but asa wise man, though he consists of body and mind, is nevertheless called wise on account of his mind, so the world is calledGod on account of mind, although it consists of mind andbody. Here he seems, in some fashion at least, to acknowledgeone God; but that he may introduce more, he adds that theworld is divided into two parts, heaven and earth, which are268 THE CITY OF GOD ' [BOOK VII. .again divided each into two parts, heaven into ether and air,earth into water and land, of all which the ether is the highest,the air second, the water third, and the earth the lowest. Allthese four parts, he says, are full of souls; those which are inthe ether and air being immortal, and those which are in thewater and on the earth mortal. From the highest part of theheavens to the orbit of the moon there are souls, namely, thestars and planets; and these are not only understood to begods, but are seen to be such. And between the orbit of themoon and the commencement of the region of clouds and windsthere are aerial souls; but these are seen with the mind, notwith the eyes, and are called Heroes, and Lares, and Genii.This is the natural theology which is briefly set forth in theseanticipatory statements, and which satisfied not Varro only, butmany philosophers besides. This I must discuss more carefully, when, with the help of God, I shall have completed whatI have yet to say concerning the civil theology, as far as itconcerns the select gods.7. Whether it is reasonable to separate Janus and Terminus astwo distinct deities.Who, then, is Janus, with whom Varro commences? Heis the world. Certainly a very brief and unambiguous reply.Why, then, do they say that the beginnings of things pertainto him, but the ends to another whom they call Terminus?For they say that two months have been dedicated to thesetwo gods, with reference to beginnings and ends-January toJanus, and February to Terminus-over and above those tenmonths which commence with March and end with December.And they say that that is the reason why the Terminaliaare celebrated in the month of February, the same monthin which the sacred purification is made which they callFebruum, and from which the month derives its name.¹Do the beginnings of things, therefore, pertain to the world,which is Janus, and not also the ends, since another godAn interesting account of the changes made in the Roman year by Numa isgiven in Plutarch's life of that king. Ovid also (Fasti, ii. ) explains the derivation of February, telling us that it was the last month of the old year, andtook its name from the lustrations performed then: " Februa Romani dixerepiamina patres. "BOOK VII. ] JANUS AND TERMINUS. 269has been placed over them? Do they not own that allthings which they say begin in this world also come to an endin this world? What folly it is, to give him only half powerin work, when in his image they give him two faces! Wouldit not be a far more elegant way of interpreting the two-facedimage, to say that Janus and Terminus are the same, and thatthe one face has reference to beginnings, the other to ends?For one who works ought to have respect to both. For hewho in every forthputting of activity does not look back onthe beginning, does not look forward to the end. Whereforeit is necessary that prospective intention be connected withretrospective memory. For how shall one find how to finishanything, if he has forgotten what it was which he had begun?But if they thought that the blessed life is begun in thisworld, and perfected beyond the world, and for that reasonattributed to Janus, that is, to the world, only the power ofbeginnings, they should certainly have preferred Terminus tohim, and should not have shut him out from the number ofthe select gods. Yet even now, when the beginnings and endsof temporal things are represented by these two gods, morehonour ought to have been given to Terminus. For the greaterjoy is that which is felt when anything is finished; but thingsbegun are always cause of much anxiety until they are broughtto an end, which end he who begins anything very greatlylongs for, fixes his mind on, expects, desires; nor does any oneever rejoice over anything he has begun, unless it be broughtto an end.8. For what reason the worshippers ofJanus have made his image with twofaces, when they would sometimes have it be seen withfour.But now let the interpretation of the two-faced image beproduced. For they say that it has two faces, one before andone behind, because our gaping mouths seem to resemble theworld: whence the Greeks call the palate ovpavós, and someLatin poets,' he says, have called the heavens palatum [thepalate]; and from the gaping mouth, they say, there is a wayout in the direction of the teeth, and a way in in the directionof the gullet. See what the world has been brought to onaccount of a Greek or a poetical word for our palate! Let1 Ennius, in Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 18.270 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VII. .this god be worshipped only on account of saliva, which hastwo open doorways under the heavens of the palate, -onethrough which part of it may be spitten out, the other throughwhich part of it may be swallowed down. Besides, what ismore absurd than not to find in the world itself two doorwaysopposite to each other, through which it may either receiveanything into itself, or cast it out from itself; and to seek ofour throat and gullet, to which the world has no resemblance,to make up an image of the world in Janus, because the worldis said to resemble the palate, to which Janus bears no likeness? But when they make him four-faced, and call himdouble Janus, they interpret this as having reference to thefour quarters of the world, as though the world looked out onanything, like Janus through his four faces. Again, if Janusis the world, and the world consists of four quarters, then theimage ofthe two-faced Janus is false. Or if it is true, becausethe whole world is sometimes understood by the expression eastand west, will any one call the world double when north andsouth also are mentioned, as they call Janus double when hehas four faces? They have no way at all of interpreting, inrelation to the world, four doorways by which to go in and tocome out as they did in the case of the two-faced Janus, wherethey found, at any rate in the human mouth, somethingwhich answered to what they said about him; unless perhapsNeptune come to their aid, and hand them a fish, which,besides the mouth and gullet, has also the openings of thegills, one on each side. Nevertheless, with all the doors, nosoul escapes this vanity but that one which hears the truthsaying, " I amthe door." 19. Concerning the power ofJupiter, and a comparison ofJupiter with Janus.But they also show whom they would have Jove (who isalso called Jupiter) understood to be. He is the god, saythey, who has the power of the causes by which anythingcomes to be in the world. And how great a thing this is,that most noble verse of Virgil testifies:"Happy is he who has learned the causes of things. "" 21 John x. 9. 2 Georgic, ii. 470.BOOK VII. ] JUPITER AND JANUS. 271Let that most acute" Because,"But why is Janus preferred to him?and most learned man answer us this question.says he, " Janus . has dominion over first things, Jupiter overhighest¹ things. Therefore Jupiter is deservedly held to bethe king of all things; for highest things are better than firstthings for although first things precede in time, highestthings excel by dignity."Now this would have been rightly said had the first partsof things which are done been distinguished from the highestparts; as, for instance, it is the beginning of a thing done toset out, the highest part to arrive. The commencing to learnis the first part of a thing begun, the acquirement of knowledge is the highest part. And so of all things: the beginnings are first, the ends highest. This matter, however, hasbeen already discussed in connection with Janus and Terminus.But the causes which are attributed to Jupiter are things effecting, not things effected; and it is impossible for them to beprevented in time by things which are made or done, or bythe beginnings of such things; for the thing which makes isalways prior to the thing which is made. Therefore, thoughthe beginnings of things which are made or done pertain toJanus, they are nevertheless not prior to the efficient causeswhich they attribute to Jupiter. For as nothing takes placewithout being preceded by an efficient cause, so without anefficient cause nothing begins to take place. Verily, if thepeople call this god Jupiter, in whose power are all the causesof all natures which have been made, and of all natural things,and worship him with such insults and infamous criminations,they are guilty of more shocking sacrilege than if they shouldtotally deny the existence of any god. It would thereforebe better for them to call some other god by the name ofJupiter-some one worthy of base and criminal honours;.substituting instead of Jupiter some vain fiction (as Saturn issaid to have had a stone given to him to devour instead of hisson), which they might make the subject of their blasphemies,rather than speak of that god as both thundering and committing adultery, ruling the whole world, and laying himself outfor the commission of so many licentious acts,—having in his¹ Summa, which also includes the meaning " last. "272 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK VII. .power nature and the highest causes of all natural things, butnot having his own causes good.Next, I ask what place they find any longer for this Jupiteramong the gods, if Janus is the world; for Varro defined thetrue gods to be the soul of the world, and the parts of it. Andtherefore whatever falls not within this definition, is certainlynot a true god, according to them. Will they then say thatJupiter is the soul of the world, and Janus the body-that is,this visible world? If they say this, it will not be possiblefor them to affirm that Janus is a god. For even, accordingto them, the body of the world is not a god, but the soul ofthe world and its parts. Wherefore Varro, seeing this, saysthat he thinks God is the soul of the world, and that thisworld itself is God; but that as a wise man, though he consists of soul and body, is nevertheless called wise from thesoul, so the world is called God from the soul, though itconsists of soul and body. Therefore the body of the worldalone is not God, but either the soul of it alone, or the souland the body together, yet so as that it is God not by virtueof the body, but by virtue of the soul. If, therefore, Janusis the world, and Janus is a god, will they say, in order thatJupiter may be a god, that he is some part of Janus? Forthey are wont rather to attribute universal existence toJupiter; whence the saying, " All things are full of Jupiter." 1Therefore they must think Jupiter also, in order that he maybe a god, and especially king of the gods, to be the world, thathe may rule over the other gods-according to them, his parts.To this effect, also, the same Varro expounds certain versesof Valerius Soranus 2 in that book which he wrote apart fromthe others concerning the worship of the gods. These are theverses:" Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,And eke the mother of the gods, god one and all. "But in the same book he expounds these verses by saying thatas the male emits seed, and the female receives it, so Jupiter,whom they believed to be the world, both emits all seeds from1 Virgil, Eclog. iii. 60, who borrows the expression from the Phænomena of Aratus.2 Soranus lived about B.C. 100. See Smith's Dict.BOOK VII . ] JANUS AND JUPITER. 273himself and receives them into himself. For which reason, hesays, Soranus wrote, " Jove, progenitor and mother; " and withno less reason said that one and all were the same. For theworld is one, and in that one are all things.10. Whether the distinction between Janus and Jupiter is a proper one.Since, therefore, Janus is the world, and Jupiter is the world,wherefore are Janus and Jupiter two gods, while the world isbut one? Why do they have separate temples, separate altars,different rites, dissimilar images? If it be because the natureof beginnings is one, and the nature of causes another, and theone has received the name of Janus, the other of Jupiter; isit then the case, that if one man has two distinct offices ofauthority, or two arts, two judges or two artificers are spokenof, because the nature of the offices or the arts is different?So also with respect to one god: if he have the power ofbeginnings and of causes, must he therefore be thought to betwo gods, because beginnings and causes are two things? Butit they think that this is right, let them also affirm that Jupiteris as many gods as they have given him surnames, on accountof many powers; for the things from which these surnamesare applied to him are many and diverse. I shall mention afew of them.11. Concerning the surnames of Jupiter, which are referred not to many gods,but to one and the same god.They have called him Victor, Invictus, Opitulus, Impulsor,Stator, Centumpeda, Supinalis, Tigillus, Almus, Ruminus, andother names which it were long to enumerate. But thesesurnames they have given to one god on account of diversecauses and powers, but yet have not compelled him to be, onaccount of so many things, as many gods. They gave himthese surnames because he conquered all things; because hewas conquered by none; because he brought help to the needy;because he had the power of impelling, stopping, stablishing,throwing on the back; because as a beam¹ he held togetherand sustained the world; because he nourished all things;because, like the pap, he nourished animals. Here, we perceive, are some great things and some small things; and yet1 Tigillus.VOL. I.2 Ruma.S274 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VII.it is one who is said to perform them all. I think that thecauses and the beginnings of things, on account of which theyhave thought that the one world is two gods, Jupiter andJanus, are nearer to each other than the holding together ofthe world, and the giving of the pap to animals; and yet, onaccount of these two works so far apart from each other, bothin nature and dignity, there has not been any necessity forthe existence of two gods; but one Jupiter has been called,on account of the one Tigillus, on account of the otherRuminus. I am unwilling to say that the giving of the papto sucking animals might have become Juno rather thanJupiter, especially when there was the goddess Rumina tohelp and to serve her in this work; for I think it may bereplied that Juno herself is nothing else than Jupiter, according to those verses of Valerius Soranus, where it has beensaid:' Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,And eke the mother of the gods, " etc.Why, then, was he called Ruminus, when they who may perchance inquire more diligently may find that he is also thatgoddess Rumina?If, then, it was rightly thought unworthy of the majesty ofthe gods, that in one ear of corn one god should have the careof the joint, another that of the husk, how much more unworthy of that majesty is it, that one thing, and that of thelowest kind, even the giving of the pap to animals that theymay be nourished, should be under the care of two gods, oneof whom is Jupiter himself, the very king of all things, whodoes this not along with his own wife, but with some ignobleRumina (unless perhaps he himself is Rumina, being Ruminusfor males and Rumina for females)! I should certainly havesaid that they had been unwilling to apply to Jupiter afeminine name, had he not been styled in these verses " progenitor and mother," and had I not read among other surnames of his that of Pecunia [ money] , which we found as agoddess among those petty deities, as I have already mentionedin the fourth book. But since both males and females havemoney [pecuniam], why has he not been called both Pecuniusand Pecunia? That is their concern.BOOK VII. ] JUPITER AND PECUNIA. 27512. That Jupiter is also called Pecunia."HeHow elegantly they have accounted for this name!is also called Pecunia," say they, " because all things belongto him." Oh how grand an explanation of the name of adeity! Yes; he to whom all things belong is most meanlyand most contumeliously called Pecunia. In comparison of allthings which are contained by heaven and earth, what are allthings together which are possessed by men under the nameof money? ¹ And this name, forsooth, hath avarice given toJupiter, that whoever was a lover of money might seem tohimself to love not an ordinary god, but the very king of allthings himself. But it would be a far different thing if he hadbeen called Riches. For riches are one thing, money another.For we call rich the wise, the just, the good, who have eitherno money or very little. For they are more truly rich inpossessing virtue, since by it, even as respects things necessaryfor the body, they are content with what they have. But wecall the greedy poor, who are always craving and always wanting. For they may possess ever so great an amount of money;but whatever be the abundance of that, they are not ablebut to want. And we properly call God Himself rich; not,however, in money, but in omnipotence. Therefore they whohave abundance of money are called rich, but inwardly needyif they are greedy. So also, those who have no money arecalled poor, but inwardly rich if they are wise.What, then, ought the wise man to think of this theology,in which the king of the gods receives the name of that thing"which no wise man has desired? "2 For had there been anything wholesomely taught by this philosophy concerning eternallife, how much more appropriately would that god who is theruler of the world have been called by them, not money, butwisdom, the love of which purges from the filth of avarice, thatis, of the love of money!13. That when it is expounded what Saturn is, what Genius is, it comes tothis, that both of them are shown to be Jupiter.But why speak more of this Jupiter, with whom perchance1 "Pecunia, " that is, property; the original meaning of "pecunia " beingproperty in cattle, then property or wealth of any kind. Comp. Augustine,De discipl. Christ. 6. Sallust, Catil. c. 11.276 [BOOK VII. THE CITY OF GOD.all the rest are to be identified; so that, he being all, theopinion as to the existence of many gods may remain as amere opinion, empty of all truth? And they are all to bereferred to him, if his various parts and powers are thoughtof as so many gods, or if the principle of mind which theythink to be diffused through all things has received the namesof many gods from the various parts which the mass of thisvisible world combines in itself, and from the manifold administration of nature. For what is Saturn also? " One of theprincipal gods," he says, " who has dominion over all sowings."Does not the exposition of the verses of Valerius Soranusteach that Jupiter is the world, and that he emits all seedsfrom himself, and receives them into himself?It is he, then, with whom is the dominion of all sowings.What is Genius? "He is the god who is set over, and hasthe power of begetting, all things. " Who else than the worlddo they believe to have this power, to which it has been said:66 Almighty Jove, progenitor and mother? "And when in another place he says that Genius is therational soul of every one, and therefore exists separately ineach individual, but that the corresponding soul of the worldis God, he just comes back to this same thing, -— namely, thatthe soul of the world itself is to be held to be, as it were, theuniversal genius. This, therefore, is what he calls Jupiter.For if every genius is a god, and the soul of every man agenius, it follows that the soul of every man is a god. But ifvery absurdity compels even these theologists themselves toshrink from this, it remains that they call that genius god byspecial and pre-eminent distinction, whom they call the soulof the world, and therefore Jupiter.14. Concerning the offices ofMercury and Mars.But they have not found how to refer Mercury and Marsto any parts of the world, and to the works of God which arein the elements; and therefore they have set them at leastover human works, making them assistants in speaking and incarrying on wars. Now Mercury, if he has also the power ofthe speech of the gods, rules also over the king of the gods him-BOOK VII. ] JUPITER AND MERCURY. 277self, if Jupiter, as he receives from him the faculty of speech,also speaks according as it is his pleasure to permit him—which surely is absurd; but if it is only the power over humanspeech which is held to be attributed to him, then we sayit is incredible that Jupiter should have condescended to givethe pap not only to children, but also to beasts-from whichhe has been surnamed Ruminus-and yet should have beenunwilling that the care of our speech, by which we excel thebeasts, should pertain to him. And thus speech itself bothbelongs to Jupiter, and is Mercury. But if speech itself issaid to be Mercury, as those things which are said concerninghim by way of interpretation show it to be; for he is saidto have been called Mercury, that is, he who runs between,¹because speech runs between men: they say also that theGreeks call him ' Epμns, because speech, or interpretation, whichcertainly belongs to speech, is called by them épμnveía: alsohe is said to preside over payments, because speech passesbetween sellers and buyers: the wings, too, which he has onhis head and on his feet, they say, mean that speech passeswinged through the air: he is also said to have been calledthe messenger, because by means of speech all our thoughtsare expressed; if, therefore, speech itself is Mercury, then,even by their own confession, he is not a god. But whenthey make to themselves gods of such as are not even demons,by praying to unclean spirits, they are possessed by such asare not gods, but demons. In like manner, because they havenot been able to find for Mars any element or part of theworld in which he might perform some works of nature ofwhatever kind, they have said that he is the god of war,which is a work of men, and that not one which is considereddesirable by them. If, therefore, Felicitas should give perpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do. But if waritself is Mars, as speech is Mercury, I wish it were as truethat there were no war to be falsely called a god, as it is truethat it is not a god.215. Concerning certain stars which the pagans have called by the namesoftheir gods.But possibly these stars which have been called by their1 Quasi medius currens. 2 Nuncius. * Enunciantur.278 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK VII.names are these gods. For they call a certain star Mercury,and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among thosestars which are called by the names of gods, is that one whichthey call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world.There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give tohim no small property besides, namely, all seeds. There alsois that brightest of them all which is called by them Venus,and yet they will have this same Venus to be also the moon:-not to mention how Venus and Juno are said by them tocontend about that most brilliant star, as though about anothergolden apple. For some say that Lucifer belongs to Venus, andsome to Juno. But, as usual, Venus conquers. For by far thegreatest number assign that star to Venus, so much so thatthere is scarcely found one of them who thinks otherwise.But since they call Jupiter the king of all, who will not laugh tosee his star so far surpassed in brilliancy by the star of Venus?For it ought to have been as much more brilliant than therest, as he himself is more powerful. They answer that itonly appears so because it is higher up, and very much fartheraway from the earth. If, therefore, its greater dignity hasdeserved a higher place, why is Saturn higher in the heavensthan Jupiter? Was the vanity of the fable which madeJupiter king not able to reach the stars? And has Saturnbeen permitted to obtain at least in the heavens, what hecould not obtain in his own kingdom nor in the Capitol?But why has Janus received no star? If it is because heis the world, and they are all in him, the world is alsoJupiter's, and yet he has one. Did Janus compromise his caseas best he could, and instead of the one star which he doesnot have among the heavenly bodies, accept so many faceson earth? Again, if they think that on account of the starsalone Mercury and Mars are parts of the world, in order thatthey may be able to have them for gods, since speech andwar are not parts of the world, but acts of men, how is itthat they have made no altars, established no rites, builtno temples for Aries, and Taurus, and Cancer, and Scorpio,and the rest which they number as the celestial signs, andwhich consist not of single stars, but each of them of manystars, which also they say are situated above those alreadyBOOK VII. ] JUPITER AND APOLLO. 279mentioned in the highest part of the heavens, where a moreconstant motion causes the stars to follow an undeviatingcourse? And why have they not reckoned them as gods, Ido not say among those select gods, but not even amongthose, as it were, plebeian gods?16. Concerning Apollo and Diana, and the other select gods whom they wouldhave to be parts of the world.Although they would have Apollo to be a diviner andphysician, they have nevertheless given him a place as somepart of the world. They have said that he is also the sun;and likewise they have said that Diana, his sister, is themoon, and the guardian of roads. Whence also they willhave her be a virgin, because a road brings forth nothing.They also make both of them have arrows, because thosetwo planets send their rays from the heavens to the earth.They make Vulcan to be the fire of the world; Neptune thewaters of the world; Father Dis, that is, Orcus, the earthyand lowest part of the world.seeds, the former over thethe seeds of females; or thebut the other over the dry part. And all this together isreferred to the world, that is, to Jupiter, who is called " progenitor and mother," because he emitted all seeds from himself, and received them into himself. For they also makethis same Ceres to be the Great Mother, who they say isnone other than the earth, and call her also Juno. Andtherefore they assign to her the second causes of things,notwithstanding that it has been said to Jupiter, " progenitorand mother of the gods; " because, according to them, thewhole world itself is Jupiter's. Minerva, also, because theyset her over human arts, and did not find even a star inwhich to place her, has been said by them to be either thehighest æther, or even the moon. Also Vesta herself theyhave thought to be the highest of the goddesses, because sheis the earth; although they have thought that the milderfire of the world, which is used for the ordinary purposesof human life, not the more violent fire, such as belongs toVulcan, is to be assigned to her. And thus they will haveall those select gods to be the world and its parts,—some ofLiber and Ceres they set overseeds of males, the latter overone over the fluid part of seed,</p><ol><li></ol><p>280 [BOOK VII.THE CITY OF GOD.them the whole world, others of them its parts; the wholeof it Jupiter, its parts, Genius, Mater Magna, Sol and Luna,or rather Apollo and Diana, and so on. And sometimes theymake one god many things; sometimes one thing many gods.Many things are one god in the case of Jupiter; for both thewhole world is Jupiter, and the sky alone is Jupiter, and thestar alone is said and held to be Jupiter. Juno also is mistress of second causes, -Juno is the air, Juno is the earth;and had she won it over Venus, Juno would have been thestar. Likewise Minerva is the highest æther, and Minervais likewise the moon, which they suppose to be in the lowestlimit of the æther. And also they make one thing manygods in this way. The world is both Janus and Jupiter;also the earth is Juno, and Mater Magna, and Ceres.17. That even Varro himselfpronounced his own opinions regarding the godsambiguous.And the same is true with respect to all the rest, as is truewith respect to those things which I have mentioned for thesake of example. They do not explain them, but ratherinvolve them. They rush hither and thither, to this side orto that, according as they are driven by the impulse of erraticopinion; so that even Varro himself has chosen rather todoubt concerning all things, than to affirm anything. For,having written the first of the three last books concerningthe certain gods, and having commenced in the second ofthese to speak of the uncertain gods, he says: " I ought notto be censured for having stated in this book the doubtfulopinions concerning the gods. For he who, when he hasread them, shall think that they both ought to be, and can be,conclusively judged of, will do so himself. For my own part,I can be more easily led to doubt the things which I havewritten in the first book, than to attempt to reduce all thethings I shall write in this one to any orderly system." Thushe makes uncertain not only that book concerning the uncertain gods, but also that other concerning the certain gods.Moreover, in that third book concerning the select gods, afterhaving exhibited by anticipation as much of the natural theology as he deemed necessary, and when about to commenceBOOK VII . ]VARRO'S UNCERTAINTY. 281to speak of the vanities and lying insanities of the civiltheology, where he was not only without the guidance of thetruth of things, but was also pressed by the authority oftradition, he says: " I will write in this book concerning thepublic gods of the Roman people, to whom they have dedicated temples, and whom they have conspicuously distinguished by many adornments; but, as Xenophon of Colophonwrites, I will state what I think, not what I am preparedto maintain: it is for man to think those things, for God toknow them."It is not, then, an account of things comprehended andmost certainly believed which he promised, when about towrite those things which were instituted by men. He onlytimidly promises an account of things which are but thesubject of doubtful opinion. Nor, indeed, was it possible forhim to affirm with the same certainty that Janus was theworld, and such like things; or to discover with the samecertainty such things as how Jupiter was the son of Saturn,while Saturn was made subject to him as king: he could,I say, neither affirm nor discover such things with thesame certainty with which he knew such things as that theworld existed, that the heavens and earth existed, the heavensbright with stars, and the earth fertile through seeds; or withthe same perfect conviction with which he believed that thisuniversal mass of nature is governed and administered by acertain invisible and mighty force.18. A more credible cause of the rise ofpagan error.A far more credible account of these gods is given, when itit said that they were men, and that to each one of themsacred rites and solemnities were instituted, according to hisparticular genius, manners, actions, circumstances; whichrites and solemnities, by gradually creeping through the soulsof men, which are like demons, and eager for things whichyield them sport, were spread far and wide; the poets adorning them with lies, and false spirits seducing men to receivethem. For it is far more likely that some youth, either impious himself, or afraid of being slain by an impious father,being desirous to reign, dethroned his father, than that (ac-282 [BOOK VII.THE CITY OF GOD.cording to Varro's interpretation) Saturn was overthrown byhis son Jupiter; for cause, which belongs to Jupiter, is beforeseed, which belongs to Saturn. For had this been so, Saturnwould never have been before Jupiter, nor would he havebeen the father of Jupiter. For cause always precedes seed,and is never generated from seed. But when they seek tohonour by natural interpretation most vain fables or deedsof men, even the acutest men are so perplexed that we arecompelled to grieve for their folly also.19. Concerning the interpretations which compose the reason ofthe worshipof Saturn.They said, says Varro, that Saturn was wont to devour allthat sprang from him, because seeds returned to the earthfrom whence they sprang. And when it is said that a lumpof earth was put before Saturn to be devoured instead ofJupiter, it is signified, he says, that before the art of ploughing was discovered, seeds were buried in the earth by thehands of men. The earth itself, then, and not seeds, shouldhave been called Saturn, because it in a manner devours whatit has brought forth, when the seeds which have sprung fromit return again into it. And what has Saturn's receiving ofa lump of earth instead of Jupiter to do with this, that theseeds were covered in the soil by the hands of men? Wasthe seed kept from being devoured, like other things, by beingcovered with the soil? For what they say would imply thathe who put on the soil took away the seed, as Jupiter is saidto have been taken away when the lump of soil was offeredto Saturn instead of him, and not rather that the soil, bycovering the seed, only caused it to be devoured the moreeagerly. Then, in that way, Jupiter is the seed, and not thecause of the seed, as was said a little before.But what shall men do who cannot find anything wise tosay, because they are interpreting foolish things? Saturnhas a pruning- knife. That, says Varro, is on account ofagriculture. Certainly in Saturn's reign there as yet existedno agriculture, and therefore the former times of Saturn arespoken of, because, as the same Varro interprets the fables,the primeval men lived on those seeds which the earth produced spontaneously. Perhaps he received a pruning-knifeBOOK VII. ] ELEUSINIAN RITES. 283-awhen he had lost his sceptre; that he who had been a king,and lived at ease during the first part of his time, shouldbecome a laborious workman whilst his son occupied thethrone. Then he says that boys were wont to be immolatedto him by certain peoples, the Carthaginians for instance;and also that adults were immolated by some nations, forexample the Gauls-because, of all seeds, the human race.is the best. What need we say more concerning this mostcruel vanity? Let us rather attend to and hold by this, thatthese interpretations are not carried up to the true God,-living, incorporeal, unchangeable nature, from whom a blessedlife enduring for ever may be obtained, —but that they endin things which are corporeal, temporal, mutable, and mortal.And whereas it is said in the fables that Saturn castratedhis father Cœlus, this signifies, says Varro, that the divineseed belongs to Saturn, and not to Coelus; for this reason,as far as a reason can be discovered, namely, that in heaven¹nothing is born from seed. But, lo! Saturn, if he is the sonof Cœlus, is the son of Jupiter. For they affirm times without number, and that emphatically, that the heavens² areJupiter. Thus those things which come not of the truth, dovery often, without being impelled by any one, themselvesoverthrow one another. He says that Saturn was calledKpóvos, which in the Greek tongue signifies a space of time,³because, without that, seed cannot be productive. These andmany other things are said concerning Saturn, and they areall referred to seed. But Saturn surely, with all that greatpower, might have sufficed for seed. Why are other godsdemanded for it, especially Liber and Libera, that is, Ceres?-concerning whom again, as far as seed is concerned, hesays as many things as if he had said nothing concerningSaturn.20. Concerning the rites ofEleusinian Ceres.Now among the rites of Ceres, those Eleusinian rites aremuch famed which were in the highest repute among theAthenians, of which Varro offers no interpretation exceptwith respect to corn, which Ceres discovered, and with respectto Proserpine, whom Ceres lost, Orcus having carried her1 Cœlo. 2? Cœlum. 3 Sc. Χρόνος.284 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VII.away. And this Proserpine herself, he says, signifies thefecundity of seeds. But as this fecundity departed at acertain season, whilst the earth wore an aspect of sorrowthrough the consequent sterility, there arose an opinion thatthe daughter of Ceres, that is, fecundity itself, who was calledProserpine, from proserpere (to creep forth, to spring) , hadbeen carried away by Orcus, and detained among the inhabitants of the nether world; which circumstance was celebratedwith public mourning. But since the same fecundity againreturned, there arose joy because Proserpine had been givenback by Orcus, and thus these rites were instituted. ThenVarro adds, that many things are taught in the mysteries ofCeres which only refer to the discovery of fruits.21. Concerning the shamefulness ofthe rites which are celebrated in honour ofLiber.Now as to the rites of Liber, whom they have set overliquid seeds, and therefore not only over the liquors of fruits,among which wine holds, so to speak, the primacy, but alsoover the seeds of animals:-as to these rites, I am unwillingto undertake to show to what excess of turpitude they hadreached, because that would entail a lengthened discourse,though I am not unwilling to do so as a demonstration of theproud stupidity of those who practise them. Among otherrites which I am compelled from the greatness of their numberto omit, Varro says that in Italy, at the places where roadscrossed each other, the rites of Liber were celebrated withsuch unrestrained turpitude, that the private parts of a manwere worshipped in his honour. Nor was this abominationtransacted in secret, that some regard at least might be paidto modesty, but was openly and wantonly displayed.during the festival of Liber, this obscene member, placed ona car, was carried with great honour, first over the cross-roadsin the country, and then into the city. But in the town ofLavinium a whole month was devoted to Liber alone, duringthe days of which all the people gave themselves up to themost dissolute conversation, until that member had beencarried through the forum and brought to rest in its ownplace; on which unseemly member it was necessary thatForBOOK VII. ] NEPTUNE, SALACIA, AND VENILIA. 285the most honourable matron should place a wreath in thepresence of all the people. Thus, forsooth, was the god Liberto be appeased in order to the growth of seeds. Thus wasenchantment to be driven away from fields, even by a matron'sbeing compelled to do in public what not even a harlot oughtto be permitted to do in a theatre, if there were matronsamong the spectators. For these reasons, then, Saturn alonewas not believed to be sufficient for seeds, namely, that theimpure mind might find occasions for multiplying the gods;and that, being righteously abandoned to uncleanness by theone true God, and being prostituted to the worship of manyfalse gods, through an avidity for ever greater and greateruncleanness, it should call these sacrilegious rites sacredthings, and should abandon itself to be violated and pollutedby crowds of foul demons.22. Concerning Neptune, and Salacia, and Venilia.Now Neptune had Salacia to wife, who they say is thenether waters of the sea. Wherefore was Venilia also joinedto him? Was it not simply through the lust of the souldesiring a greater number of demons to whom to prostituteitself, and not because this goddess was necessary to the perfection of their sacred rites? But let the interpretation of thisillustrious theology be brought forward to restrain us fromthis censuring by rendering a satisfactory reason. Venilia,says this theology, is the wave which comes to the shore,Salacia the wave which returns into the sea. Why, then, arethere two goddesses, when it is one wave which comes andreturns? Certainly it is mad lust itself, which in its eagerness for many deities resembles the waves which break on theshore. For though the water which goes is not different fromthat which returns, still the soul which goes and returns notis defiled by two demons, whom it has taken occasion by thisfalse pretext to invite. I ask thee, O Varro, and you whohave read such works of learned men, and think ye havelearned something great, -I ask you to interpret this, I do notsay in a manner consistent with the eternal and unchangeablenature which alone is God, but only in a manner consistentwith the doctrine concerning the soul of the world and its286 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK VILparts, which ye think to be the true gods. It is a somewhatmore tolerable thing that ye have made that part of the soulof the world which pervades the sea your god Neptune. Isthe wave, then, which comes to the shore and returns to themain, two parts of the world, or two parts of the soul of theworld? Who of you is so silly as to think so? Why, then,have they made to you two goddesses? The only reasonseems to be, that your wise ancestors have provided, not thatmany gods should rule you, but that many of such demons asare delighted with those vanities and falsehoods should possessyou. But why has that Salacia, according to this interpretation, lost the lower part of the sea, seeing that she was represented as subject to her husband? For in saying that sheis the receding wave, ye have put her on the surface. Wasshe enraged at her husband for taking Venilia as a concubine,and thus drove him from the upper part of the sea?23. Concerning the earth, which Varro affirms to be a goddess, because that soulofthe world which he thinks to be God pervades also this lowest part ofhis body, and imparts to it a divine force.Surely the earth, which we see full of its own living creatures, is one; but for all that, it is but a mighty mass amongthe elements, and the lowest part of the world. Why, then,would they have it to be a goddess? Is it because it is fruitful? Why, then, are not men rather held to be gods, whorender it fruitful by cultivating it; but though they ploughit, do not adore it? But, say they, the part of the soul of theworld which pervades it makes it a goddess. As if it werenot a far more evident thing, nay, a thing which is not calledin question, that there is a soul in man. And yet men arenot held to be gods, but (a thing to be sadly lamented) , withwonderful and pitiful delusion, are subjected to those who arenot gods, and than whom they themselves are better, as theobjects of deserved worship and adoration. And certainly thesame Varro, in the book concerning the select gods, affirmsthat there are three grades of soul in universal nature. Onewhich pervades all the living parts of the body, and has notsensation, but only the power of life, that principle whichpenetrates into the bones, nails, and hair. By this principlein the world trees are nourished, and grow without being pos-BOOK VII. ]VARRO'S INTERPRETATIONS. 287sessed of sensation, and live in a manner peculiar to themselves. The second grade of soul is that in which there issensation. This principle penetrates into the eyes, ears,nostrils, mouth, and the organs of sensation. The third gradeof soul is the highest, and is called mind, where intelligencehas its throne. This grade of soul no mortal creatures exceptman are possessed of. Nowthis part of the soul of the world,Varro says, is called God, and in us is called Genius. And thestones and earth in the world, which we see, and which arenot pervaded by the power of sensation, are, as it were, thebones and nails of God. Again, the sun, moon, and stars,which we perceive, and by which He perceives, are His organsof perception. Moreover, the ether is His mind; and by thevirtue which is in it, which penetrates into the stars, it alsomakes them gods; and because it penetrates through theminto the earth, it makes it the goddess Tellus, whence again itenters and permeates the sea and ocean, making them the godNeptune.Let him return from this, which he thinks to be naturaltheology, back to that from which he went out, in orderto rest from the fatigue occasioned by the many turnings andwindings of his path. Let him return, I say, let him return to the civil theology. I wish to detain him there awhile. I have somewhat to say which has to do with thattheology. I am not yet saying, that if the earth and stonesare similar to our bones and nails, they are in like mannerdevoid of intelligence, as they are devoid of sensation. Noram I saying that, if our bones and nails are said to have intelligence, because they are in a man who has intelligence, hewho says that the things analogous to these in the world aregods, is as stupid as he is who says that our bones and nailsare men. We shall perhaps have occasion to dispute thesethings with the philosophers. At present, however, I wish todeal with Varro as a political theologian. For it is possiblethat, though he may seem to have wished to lift up his head,as it were, into the liberty of natural theology, the consciousness that the book with which he was occupied was one concerning a subject belonging to civil theology, may have causedhim to relapse into the point of view of that theology, and to288 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VII.say this in order that the ancestors of his nation, and otherstates, might not be believed to have bestowed on Neptune anirrational worship. What I am to say is this: Since the earthis one, why has not that part of the soul of the world whichpermeates the earth made it that one goddess which he callsTellus? But had it done so, what then had become of Orcus,the brother of Jupiter and Neptune, whom they call FatherDis?¹ And where, in that case, had been his wife Proserpine,who, according to another opinion given in the same book, iscalled, not the fecundity of the earth, but its lower part?3But if they say that part of the soul of the world, when itpermeates the upper part of the earth, makes the god FatherDis, but when it pervades the nether part of the same thegoddess Proserpine; what, in that case, will that Tellus be?For all that which she was has been divided into these twoparts, and these two gods; so that it is impossible to findwhat to make or where to place her as a third goddess, exceptit be said that those divinities Orcus and Proserpine are theone goddess Tellus, and that they are not three gods, but oneor two, whilst notwithstanding they are called three, held tobe three, worshipped as three, having their own several altars,their own shrines, rites, images, priests, whilst their own falsedemons also through these things defile the prostituted soul.Let this further question be answered: What part of the earthdoes a part of the soul of the world permeate in order to makethe god Tellumo? No, says he; but the earth being one andthe same, has a double life, the masculine, which producesseed, and the feminine, which receives and nourishes the seed.Hence it has been called Tellus from the feminine principle,and Tellumo from the masculine. Why, then, do the priests,as he indicates, perform divine service to four gods, two othersbeing added, namely, to Tellus, Tellumo, Altor, and Rusor?We have already spoken concerning Tellus and Tellumo.why do they worship Altor?³ Because, says he, all thatsprings of the earth is nourished by the earth. Whereforedo they worship Rusor?* Because all things return backagain to the place whence they proceeded.1 See c. 16.3 Nourisher.2 Varro, De Ling. Lat. v. 68.+ Returner.ButBOOK VII. ] TELLUS AND HER RITES. 28924. Concerning the surnames of Tellus and their significations, which, althoughthey indicate many properties, ought not to have established the opinionthat there is a corresponding number ofgods.The one earth, then, on account of this fourfold virtue,ought to have had four surnames, but not to have been considered as four gods, as Jupiter and Juno, though they haveso many surnames, are for all that only single deities, for byall these surnames it is signified that a manifold virtue belongs to one god or to one goddess; but the multitude of surnames does not imply a multitude of gods. But as sometimeseven the vilest women themselves grow tired of those crowdswhich they have sought after under the impulse of wickedpassion, so also the soul, become vile, and prostituted to impure spirits, sometimes begins to loathe to multiply to itselfgods to whom to surrender itself to be polluted by them, asmuch as it once delighted in so doing. For Varro himself,as if ashamed of that crowd of gods, would make Tellus to beone goddess. "They say," says he, " that whereas the onegreat mother has a tympanum, it is signified that she is theorb of the earth; whereas she has towers on her head, townsare signified; and whereas seats are fixed round about her, itis signified that whilst all things move, she moves not. Andtheir having made the Galli to serve this goddess, signifiesthat they who are in need of seed ought to follow the earth,for in it all seeds are found. By their throwing themselvesdown before her, it is taught," he says, " that they who cultivate the earth should not sit idle, for there is always something for them to do. The sound of the cymbals signifies thenoise made by the throwing of iron utensils, and by men'shands, and all other noises connected with agricultural operations; and these cymbals are of brass, because the ancientsused brazen utensils in their agriculture before iron was discovered. They place beside the goddess an unbound andtame lion, to show that there is no kind of land so wild andso excessively barren as that it would be profitless to attemptto bring it in and cultivate it." Then he adds that, becausethey gave many names and surnames to mother Tellus, itcame to be thought that these signified many gods. "Theythink," says he, " that Tellus isOps, because the earth is imVOL. I. T290 [ BOOK VII. THE CITY OF GOD.proved by labour; Mother, because it brings forth much;Great, because it brings forth seed; Proserpine, because fruitscreep forth from it; Vesta, because it is invested with herbs.And thus," says he, " they not at all absurdly identify othergoddesses with the earth." If, then, it is one goddess (though,if the truth were consulted, it is not even that), why do theynevertheless separate it into many? Let there be manynames of one goddess, and let there not be as many goddessesas there are names.But the authority of the erring ancients weighs heavily onVarro, and compels him, after having expressed this opinion,to show signs of uneasiness; for he immediately adds,"With which things the opinion of the ancients, who thoughtthat there were really many goddesses, does not conflict."How does it not conflict, when it is entirely a different thingto say that one goddess has many names, and to say thatthere are many goddesses? But it is possible, he says, thatthe same thing may both be one, and yet have in it a pluralityof things. I grant that there are many things in one man;are there therefore in him many men? In like manner, inone goddess there are many things; are there therefore alsomany goddesses? But let them divide, unite, multiply, reduplicate, and implicate as they like.These are the famous mysteries of Tellus and the GreatMother, all of which are shown to have reference to mortalseeds and to agriculture. Do these things, then, namely,the tympanum, the towers, the Galli, the tossing to and froof limbs, the noise of cymbals, the images of lions, —do thesethings, having this reference and this end, promise eternallife? Do the mutilated Galli, then, serve this Great Motherin order to signify that they who are in need of seed shouldfollow the earth, as though it were not rather the case thatthis very service caused them to want seed? For whether dothey, by following this goddess, acquire seed, being in want ofit, or, by following her, lose seed when they have it? Is thisto interpret or to deprecate? Nor is it considered to what adegree malign demons have gained the upper hand, inasmuchas they have been able to exact such cruel rites without havingdared to promise any great things in return for them. HadBOOK VII. ] MUTILATION OF ATYS. 291the earth not been a goddess, men would have, by labouring,laid their hands on it in order to obtain seed through it, andwould not have laid violent hands on themselves in order tolose seed on account of it. Had it not been a goddess, itwould have become so fertile by the hands of others, that itwould not have compelled a man to be rendered barren byhis own hands; nor that in the festival of Liber an honourable matron put a wreath on the private parts of a man inthe sight of the multitude, where perhaps her husband wasstanding by blushing and perspiring, if there is any shame leftin men; and that in the celebration of marriages the newlymarried bride was ordered to sit upon Priapus. These thingsare bad enough, but they are small and contemptible in comparison with that most cruel abomination, or most abominablecruelty, by which either set is so deluded that neither perishesof its wound. There the enchantment of fields is feared; herethe amputation of members is not feared. There the modestyof the bride is outraged, but in such a manner as that neitherher fruitfulness nor even her virginity is taken away; herea man is so mutilated that he is neither changed into a womannor remains a man.25. The interpretation of the mutilation of Atys which the doctrine oftheGreek sages set forth.Varro has not spoken of that Atys, nor sought out anyinterpretation for him, in memory of whose being loved byCeres the Gallus is mutilated. But the learned and wiseGreeks have by no means been silent about an interpretationso holy and so illustrious. The celebrated philosopher Porphyry has said that Atys signifies the flowers of spring, whichis the most beautiful season, and therefore was mutilatedbecause the flower falls before the fruit appears.¹ Theyhave not, then, compared the man himself, or rather thatsemblance of a man they called Atys, to the flower, but hismale organs, these, indeed, fell whilst he was living. DidI say fell? nay, truly they did not fall, nor were they pluckedoff, but torn away. Nor when that flower was lost did anyfruit follow, but rather sterility. What, then, do they sayis signified by the castrated Atys himself, and whatever re-' In the book De Ratione Naturali Deorum.292 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VII. .mained to him after his castration? To what do they referthat? What interpretation does that give rise to? Do they,after vain endeavours to discover an interpretation, seek topersuade men that that is rather to be believed which reporthas made public, and which has also been written concerninghis having been a mutilated man? Our Varro has very properly opposed this, and has been unwilling to state it; for itcertainly was not unknown to that most learned man.26. Concerning the abomination of the sacred rites of the Great Mother.Concerning the effeminates consecrated to the same GreatMother, in defiance of all the modesty which belongs to menand women, Varro has not wished to say anything, nor do Iremember to have read anywhere aught concerning them.These effeminates, no later than yesterday, were going throughthe streets and places of Carthage with anointed hair, whitenedfaces, relaxed bodies, and feminine gait, exacting from thepeople the means of maintaining their ignominious lives.Nothing has been said concerning them. Interpretationfailed, reason blushed, speech was silent. The Great Motherhas surpassed all her sons, not in greatness of deity, but ofcrime. To this monster not even the monstrosity of Janus isto be compared. His deformity was only in his image; herswas the deformity of cruelty in her sacred rites. He has aredundancy of members in stone images; she inflicts the lossof members on men. This abomination is not surpassed bythe licentious deeds of Jupiter, so many and so great. He,with all his seductions of women, only disgraced heaven withone Ganymede; she, with so many avowed and public effeminates, has both defiled the earth and outraged heaven. Perhaps we may either compare Saturn to this Magna Mater, oreven set him before her in this kind of abominable cruelty,for he mutilated his father. But at the festivals of Saturnmen could rather be slain bythe hands of others than mutilated by their own. He devoured his sons, as the poets say,and the natural theologists interpret this as they list. History says he slew them. But the Romans never received,like the Carthaginians, the custom of sacrificing their sons tohim. This Great Mother of the gods, however, has broughtBOOK VII. ] RITES OF THE GREAT MOTHER. 293mutilated men into Roman temples, and has preserved thatcruel custom, being believed to promote the strength of theRomans by emasculating their men. Compared with thisevil, what are the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus,and the base and flagitious deeds of the rest of them, whichwe might bring forward from books, were it not that they aredaily sung and danced in the theatres? But what are thesethings to so great an evil,-an evil whose magnitude was onlyproportioned to the greatness of the Great Mother,-especially as these are said to have been invented by the poets?as if the poets had also invented this, that they are acceptable to the gods. Let it be imputed, then, to the audacityand impudence of the poets that these things have been sungand written of. But that they have been incorporated intothe body of divine rites and honours, the deities themselvesdemanding and extorting that incorporation, what is that butthe crime of the gods? nay more, the confession of demonsand the deception of wretched men? But as to this, thatthe Great Mother is considered to be worshipped in the appropriate form when she is worshipped by the consecration ofmutilated men, this is not an invention of the poets, nay,they have rather shrunk from it with horror than sung of it.Ought any one, then, to be consecrated to these select gods,that he may live blessedly after death, consecrated to whomhe could not live decently before death, being subjected to suchfoul superstitions, and bound over to unclean demons? Butall these things, says Varro, are to be referred to the world.¹Let him consider if it be not rather to the unclean. Butwhy not refer that to the world which is demonstrated to bein the world? We, however, seek for a mind which, trustingto true religion, does not adore the world as its god, but forthe sake of God praises the world as a work of God, and,purified from mundane defilements, comes pure to God Himself who founded the world. "27. Concerning the figments of the physical theologists, who neither worship thetrue divinity, nor perform the worship wherewith the true divinity shouldbe served.We see that these select gods have, indeed, become more1 Mundum. * Immundum. 3 Mundus. 4 Mundum.294 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VII.famous than the rest; not, however, that their merits may bebrought to light, but that their opprobrious deeds may notbe hid. Whence it is more credible that they were men, asnot only poetic but also historical literature has handed down.For this which Virgil says,"Then from Olympus' heights came down Good Saturn, exiled from his throneBy Jove, his mightier heir; "¹and what follows with reference to this affair, is fully relatedby the historian Euhemerus, and has been translated intoLatin by Ennius. And as they who have written before usin the Greek or in the Latin tongue against such errors asthese have said much concerning this matter, I have thoughtit unnecessary to dwell upon it. When I consider those physical reasons, then, by which learned and acute men attempt toturn human things into divine things, all I see is that theyhave been able to refer these things only to temporal worksand to that which has a corporeal nature, and even thoughinvisible still mutable; and this is by no means the true God.But if this worship had been performed as the symbolism ofideas at least congruous with religion, though it would indeedhave been cause of grief that the true God was not announcedand proclaimed by its symbolism, nevertheless it could havebeen in some degree borne with, when it did not occasionand command the performance of such foul and abominablethings. But since it is impiety to worship the body or thesoul for the true God, by whose indwelling alone the soul ishappy, how much more impious is it to worship those thingsthrough which neither soul nor body can obtain either salvation or human honour? Wherefore if with temple, priest, andsacrifice, which are due to the true God, any element of theworld be worshipped, or any created spirit, even though notimpure and evil, that worship is still evil, not because thethings are evil by which the worship is performed, but becausethose things ought only to be used in the worship of Him towhom alone such worship and service are due.But if anyone insist that he worships the one true God, that is, theCreator of every soul and of every body,-with stupid and1¹ Virgil, Eneid, viii . 319-20.BOOK VII. ]INCONSISTENCY OF VARRO.295monstrous idols, with human victims, with putting a wreathon the male organ, with the wages of unchastity, with thecutting of limbs, with emasculation, with the consecration ofeffeminates, with impure and obscene plays, such a one doesnot sin because he worships One who ought not to be worshipped, but because he worships Him who ought to be worshipped in a way in which He ought not to be worshipped.But he who worships with such things, that is, foul andobscene things, —and that not the true God, namely, themaker of soul and body, but a creature, even though not awicked creature, whether it be soul or body, or soul and bodytogether, twice sins against God, because he both worshipsfor God what is not God, and also worships with such thingsas neither God nor what is not God ought to be worshippedwith. It is, indeed, manifest how these pagans worship, —thatis, how shamefully and criminally they worship; but what orwhom they worship would have been left in obscurity, hadnot their history testified that those same confessedly baseand foul rites were rendered in obedience to the demands ofthe gods, who exacted them with terrible severity. Whereforeit is evident beyond doubt that this whole civil theology isoccupied in inventing means for attracting wicked and mostimpure spirits, inviting them to visit senseless images, andthrough these to take possession of stupid hearts.28. That the doctrine of Varro concerning theology is in no part consistentwith itself.HeTo what purpose, then, is it that this most learned and mostacute man Varro attempts, as it were, with subtle disputation,to reduce and refer all these gods to heaven and earth?cannot do it. They go out of his hands like water; theyshrink back; they slip down and fall. For when about tospeak of the females, that is, the goddesses, he says, " Since,as I observed in the first book concerning places, heaven andearth are the two origins of the gods, on which account theyare called celestials and terrestrials, and as I began in the formerbooks with heaven, speaking of Janus, whom some have saidto be heaven, and others the earth, so I now commence withTellus in speaking concerning the goddesses." I can understand what embarrassment so great a mind was experiencing.296 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VILFor he is influenced by the perception of a certain plausibleresemblance, when he says that the heaven is that which does,and the earth that which suffers, and therefore attributes themasculine principle to the one, and the feminine to the other,-not considering that it is rather He who made both heavenand earth who is the maker of both activity and passivity.On this principle he interprets the celebrated mysteries of theSamothracians, and promises, with an air of great devoutness,that he will by writing expound these mysteries, which havenot been so much as known to his countrymen, and will sendthem his exposition. Then he says that he had from manyproofs gathered that, in those mysteries, among the imagesone signifies heaven, another the earth, another the patternsof things, which Plato calls ideas. He makes Jupiter tosignify heaven, Juno the earth, Minerva the ideas. Heaven,by which anything is made; the earth, from which it is made;and the pattern, according to which it is made. But, withrespect to the last, I am forgetting to say that Plato attributedso great an importance to these ideas as to say, not that anything was made by heaven according to them, but that according to them heaven itself was made.¹ To return, however,—itis to be observed that Varro has, in the book on the selectgods, lost that theory of these gods, in whom he has, as itwere, embraced all things. For he assigns the male gods toheaven, the females to earth; among which latter he hasplaced Minerva, whom he had before placed above heavenitself. Then the male god Neptune is in the sea, whichpertains rather to earth than to heaven. Last of all, fatherDis, who is called in Greek IIλoÚTwv, another male god,brother of both (Jupiter and Neptune), is also held to bea god of the earth, holding the upper region of the earthhimself, and allotting the nether region to his wife Proserpine.How, then, do they attempt to refer the gods to heaven, andthe goddesses to earth? What solidity, what consistency,what sobriety has this disputation? But that Tellus is theorigin of the goddesses, the great mother, to wit, beside whomthere is continually the noise of the mad and abominablerevelry of effeminates and mutilated men, and men who cut1 In the Timæus.BOOK VII. ] THE ONE TRUE GOD OVER ALL. 297themselves, and indulge in frantic gesticulations,—how is it,then, that Janus is called the head of the gods, and Tellus thehead of the goddesses? In the one case error does not makeone head, and in the other frenzy does not make a sane one.Why do they vainly attempt to refer these to the world?Even if they could do so, no pious person worships the worldfor the true God. Nevertheless, plain truth makes it evidentthat they are not able even to do this. Let them ratheridentify them with dead men and most wicked demons, andno further question will remain.29. That all things which the physical theologists have referred to the world andits parts, they ought to have referred to the one true God.For all those things which, according to the account givenof those gods, are referred to the world by so- called physicalinterpretation, may, without any religious scruple, be ratherassigned to the true God, who made heaven and earth, andcreated every soul and every body; and the following is themanner in which we see that this may be done. We worshipGod, not heaven and earth, of which two parts this worldconsists, nor the soul or souls diffused through all livingthings, but God who made heaven and earth, and all thingswhich are in them; who made every soul, whatever be thenature of its life, whether it have life without sensation andreason, or life with sensation, or life with both sensation andreason.30. How piety distinguishes the Creator from the creatures, so that, instead ofone God, there are not worshipped as many gods as there are works of the one author.And now, to begin to go over those works of the one trueGod, on account of which these have made to themselvesmany and false gods, whilst they attempt to give an honourable interpretation to their many most abominable and mostinfamous mysteries, we worship that God who has appointedto the natures created by Him both the beginnings and theend of their existing and moving; who holds, knows, and disposes the causes of things; who hath created the virtue ofseeds; who hath given to what creatures He would a rationalsoul, which is called mind; who hath bestowed the faculty anduse of speech; who hath imparted the gift of foretelling future298 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK VILthings to whatever spirits it seemed to Him good; who alsoHimself predicts future things, through whom He pleases,and through whom He will removes diseases; who, when thehuman race is to be corrected and chastised by wars, regulates also the beginnings, progress, and ends of these wars;who hath created and governs the most vehement and mostviolent fire of this world, in due relation and proportion tothe other elements of immense nature; who is the governorof all the waters; who hath made the sun brightest of allmaterial lights, and hath given him suitable power andmotion; who hath not withdrawn, even from the inhabitantsof the nether world, His dominion and power; who hathappointed to mortal natures their suitable seed and nourishment, dry or liquid; who establishes and makes fruitful theearth; who bountifully bestows its fruits on animals and onmen; who knows and ordains, not only principal causes, butalso subsequent causes; who hath determined for the moonher motion; who affords ways in heaven and on earth forpassage from one place to another; who hath granted also tohuman minds, which He hath created, the knowledge of thevarious arts for the help of life and nature; who hathappointed the union of male and female for the propagationof offspring; who hath favoured the societies of men with thegift of terrestrial fire for the simplest and most familiar purposes, to burn on the hearth and to give light. These are,then, the things which that most acute and most learned manVarro has laboured to distribute among the select gods, by Iknow not what physical interpretation, which he has got fromother sources, and also conjectured for himself. But thesethings the one true God makes and does, but as the same God,that is, as He who is wholly everywhere, included in nospace, bound by no chains, mutable in no part of His being,filling heaven and earth with omnipresent power, not with aneedy nature. Therefore He governs all things in such amanner as to allow them to perform and exercise their ownproper movements. For although they can be nothing withoutHim, they are not what He is. He does also many thingsthrough angels; but only from Himself does He beatify angels.So also, though He send angels to men for certain purposes,BOOK VII. ] THE GRACE OF GOD. 299He does not for all that beatify men by the good inherent inthe angels, but by Himself, as He does the angels themselves.31. What benefits God gives to thefollowers ofthe truth to enjoy over and aboveHis general bounty.For, besides such benefits as, according to this administration of nature of which we have made some mention, Helavishes on good and bad alike, we have from Him a greatmanifestation of great love, which belongs only to the good.For although we can never sufficiently give thanks to Him,that we are, that we live, that we behold heaven and earth,that we have mind and reason by which to seek after Himwho made all these things, nevertheless, what hearts, whatnumber of tongues, shall affirm that they are sufficient torender thanks to Him for this, that He hath not whollydeparted from us, laden and overwhelmed with sins, averse tothe contemplation of His light, and blinded by the love ofdarkness, that is, of iniquity, but hath sent to us His ownWord, who is His only Son, that by His birth and sufferingfor us in the flesh, which He assumed, we might know howmuch God valued man, and that by that unique sacrifice wemight be purified from all our sins, and that, love being shedabroad in our hearts by His Spirit, we might, having surmounted all difficulties, come into eternal rest, and theineffable sweetness of the contemplation of Himself?32. That at no time in the past was the mystery of Christ's redemption awanting,but was at all times declared, though in variousforms.This mystery of eternal life, even from the beginning of thehuman race, was, by certain signs and sacraments suitable tothe times, announced through angels to those to whom it wasmeet. Then the Hebrew people was congregated into onerepublic, as it were, to perform this mystery; and in that republic was foretold, sometimes through men who understoodwhat they spake, and sometimes through men who understoodnot, all that had transpired since the advent of Christ until now,and all that will transpire. This same nation, too, was afterwards dispersed through the nations, in order to testify to thescriptures in which eternal salvation in Christ had been declared .For not only the prophecies which are contained in words, noronly the precepts for the right conduct of life, which teach300 THE [ BOOK VII.CITY OF GOD.morals and piety, and are contained in the sacred writings,—notonly these, but also the rites, priesthood, tabernacle or temple,altars, sacrifices, ceremonies, and whatever else belongs to thatservice which is due to God, and which in Greek is properlycalled λarpeía, all these signified and fore-announced thosethings which we who believe in Jesus Christ unto eternal lifebelieve to have been fulfilled , or behold in process of fulfilment,or confidently believe shall yet be fulfilled.33. That only through the Christian religion could the deceit ofmalign spirits,who rejoice in the errors ofmen, have been manifested.This, the only true religion, has alone been able to manifestthat the gods of the nations are most impure demons, whodesire to be thought gods, availing themselves of the names ofcertain defunct souls, or the appearance of mundane creatures,and with proud impurity rejoicing in things most base andinfamous, as though in divine honours, and envying humansouls their conversion to the true God. From whose mostcruel and most impious dominion a man is liberated when hebelieves on Him who has afforded an example of humility,following which men may rise as great as was that pride bywhich they fell. Hence are not only those gods, concerningwhom we have already spoken much, and many others belonging to different nations and lands, but also those of whom weare now treating, who have been selected as it were into thesenate of the gods, -selected, however, on account of thenotoriousness of their crimes, not on account of the dignityof their virtues, -whose sacred things Varro attempts torefer to certain natural reasons, seeking to make base thingshonourable, but cannot find how to square and agree withthese reasons, because these are not the causes of those rites,which he thinks, or rather wishes to be thought to be so. Forhad not only these, but also all others of this kind, been realcauses, even though they had nothing to do with the true Godand eternal life, which is to be sought in religion, they would,by affording some sort of reason drawn from the nature ofthings, have mitigated in some degree that offence which wasoccasioned by some turpitude or absurdity in the sacred rites,which was not understood. This he attempted to do inrespect to certain fables of the theatres, or mysteries of theBOOK VII. ] BOOKS OF NUMA POMPILIUS. 301shrines; but he did not acquit the theatres of likeness to theshrines, but rather condemned the shrines for likeness to thetheatres. However, he in some way made the attempt tosoothe the feelings shocked by horrible things, by renderingwhat he would have to be natural interpretations.34. Concerning the books of Numa Pompilius, which the senate ordered to beburned, in order that the causes of sacred rites therein assigned should not become known.But, on the other hand, we find, as the same most learnedman has related, that the causes of the sacred rites whichwere given from the books of Numa Pompilius could by nomeans be tolerated, and were considered unworthy, not onlyto become known to the religious by being read, but even tolie written in the darkness in which they had been concealed.For now let me say what I promised in the third book of thiswork to say in its proper place. For, as we read in the sameVarro's book on the worship of the gods, " A certain oneTerentius had a field at the Janiculum, and once, when hisploughman was passing the plough near to the tomb of NumaPompilius, he turned up from the ground the books of Numa,in which were written the causes of the sacred institutions;which books he carried to the prætor, who, having read thebeginnings of them, referred to the senate what seemed to bea matter of so much importance. And when the chief senatorshad read certain of the causes why this or that rite was instituted, the senate assented to the dead Numa, and the conscriptfathers, as though concerned for the interests of religion,ordered the prætor to burn the books." Let each one believewhat he thinks; nay, let every champion of such impietysay whatever mad contention may suggest. For my part, letit suffice to suggest that the causes of those sacred thingswhich were written down by King Numa Pompilius, theinstitutor of the Roman rites, ought never to have becomeknown to people or senate, or even to the priests themselves;and also that Numa himself attained to these secrets ofdemons by an illicit curiosity, in order that he might writethem down, so as to be able, by reading, to be reminded ofthem. However, though he was king, and had no cause to1 Plutarch's Numą; Livy, xl. 29.302 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VII. .be afraid of any one, he neither dared to teach them to anyone, nor to destroy them by obliteration, or any other form ofdestruction. Therefore, because he was unwilling that anyone should know them, lest men should be taught infamousthings, and because he was afraid to violate them, lest heshould enrage the demons against himself, he buried them inwhat he thought a safe place, believing that a plough couldnot approach his sepulchre. But the senate, fearing to condemn the religious solemnities of their ancestors, and thereforecompelled to assent to Numa, were nevertheless so convincedthat those books were pernicious, that they did not orderthem to be buried again, knowing that human curiosity wouldthereby be excited to seek with far greater eagerness afterthe matter already divulged, but ordered the scandalous relicsto be destroyed with fire; because, as they thought it was nowa necessity to perform those sacred rites, they judged that theerror arising from ignorance of their causes was more tolerablethan the disturbance which the knowledge of them wouldoccasion the state.35. Concerning the hydromancy through which Numa was befooled by certainimages ofdemons seen in the water.For Numa himself also, to whom no prophet of God, noholy angel was sent, was driven to have recourse to hydromancy, that he might see the images of the gods in the water(or, rather, appearances whereby the demons made sport ofhim), and might learn from them what he ought to ordain andobserve in the sacred rites. This kind of divination, saysVarro, was introduced from the Persians, and was used byNuma himself, and at an after time by the philosopherPythagoras. In this divination, he says, they also inquire atthe inhabitants of the nether world, and make use of blood;and this the Greeks call veкрoμavтeíav νεκρομαντείαν.. But whether it becalled necromancy or hydromancy it is the same thing, for ineither case the dead are supposed to foretell future things.But by what artifices these things are done, let themselvesconsider; for I am unwilling to say that these artifices werewont to be prohibited by the laws, and to be very severelypunished even in the Gentile states, before the advent of ourSaviour. I am unwilling, I say, to affirm this, for perhapsBOOK VII. ]NUMA'S HYDROMANCY. 303even such things were then allowed. However, it was bythese arts that Pompilius learned those sacred rites which hegave forth as facts, whilst he concealed their causes; foreven he himself was afraid of that which he had learned.The senate also caused the books in which those causes wererecorded to be burned. What is it, then, to me, that Varroattempts to adduce all sorts of fanciful physical interpretations, which if these books had contained, they would certainlynot have been burned? For otherwise the conscript fatherswould also have burned those books which Varro publishedand dedicated to the high priest Cæsar.¹ Now Numa is saidto have married the nymph Egeria, because (as Varro explains it in the forementioned book) he carried forth² waterwherewith to perform his hydromancy. Thus facts are wontto be converted into fables through false colourings. It wasby that hydromancy, then, that that over-curious Roman kinglearned both the sacred rites which were to be written in thebooks of the priests, and also the causes of those rites, -whichlatter, however, he was unwilling that any one besides himselfshould know. Wherefore he made these causes, as it were,to die along with himself, taking care to have them writtenby themselves, and removed from the knowledge of men bybeing buried in the earth. Wherefore the things which arewritten in those books were either abominations of demons,so foul and noxious as to render that whole civil theologyexecrable even in the eyes of such men as those senators, whohad accepted so many shameful things in the sacred rites.themselves, or they were nothing else than the accounts ofdead men, whom, through the lapse of ages, almost all theGentile nations had come to believe to be immortal gods;whilst those same demons were delighted even with such rites,having presented themselves to receive worship under pretenceof being those very dead men whom they had caused to bethought immortal gods by certain fallacious miracles, performedin order to establish that belief. But, by the hidden providence of the true God, these demons were permitted to confessthese things to their friend Numa, having been gained by thosearts through which necromancy could be performed , and yet1 Comp. Lactantius, Instit. i. 6. 2 Egesserit.304 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VILwere not constrained to admonish him rather at his death toburn than to bury the books in which they were written.But, in order that these books might be unknown, the demonscould not resist the plough by which they were thrown up, orthe pen of Varro, through which the things which were donein reference to this matter have come down even to our knowledge. For they are not able to effect anything which theyare not allowed; but they are permitted to influence thosewhom God, in His deep and just judgment, according to theirdeserts, gives over either to be simply afflicted by them, or tobe also subdued and deceived. But how pernicious thesewritings were judged to be, or how alien from the worship ofthe true Divinity, may be understood from the fact that thesenate preferred to burn what Pompilius had hid, rather thanto fear what he feared, so that he could not dare to do that.Wherefore let him who does not desire to live a pious lifeeven now, seek eternal life by means of such rites. But lethim who does not wish to have fellowship with malign demonshave no fear for the noxious superstition wherewith they areworshipped, but let him recognise the true religion by whichthey are unmasked and vanquished.BOOK VIII. ] THE PHILOSOPHERS. 305BOOK EIGHTH.ARGUMENT.AUGUSTINE COMES NOW TO THE THIRD KIND OF THEOLOGY, THAT IS, THENATURAL, AND TAKES UP THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE WORSHIP OFTHE GODS OF THE NATURAL THEOLOGY IS OF ANY AVAIL TOWARDSSECURING BLESSEDNESS IN THE LIFE TO COME. THIS QUESTION HEPREFERS TO DISCUSS WITH THE PLATONISTS, BECAUSE THE PLATONICSYSTEM IS " FACILE PRINCEPS " AMONG PHILOSOPHIES, AND MAKES THENEAREST APPROXIMATION TO CHRISTIAN TRUTH. IN PURSUING THISARGUMENT, HE FIRST REFUTES APULEIUS, AND ALL WHO MAINTAIN THATTHE DEMONS SHOULD BE WORSHIPPED AS MESSENGERS AND MEDIATORSBETWEEN GODS AND MEN; DEMONSTRATING THAT BY NO POSSIBILITY CANMEN BE RECONCILED TO GOOD GODS BY DEMONS, WHO ARE THE SLAVES OFVICE, AND WHO DELIGHT IN AND PATRONIZE WHAT GOOD AND WISEMEN ABHOR AND CONDEMN, -THE BLASPHEMOUS FICTIONS OF POETS,THEATRICAL EXHIBITIONS, AND MAGICAL ARTS.1. That the question ofnatural theology is to be discussed with those philosopherswho sought a more excellent wisdom.WEE shall require to apply our mind with far greaterintensity to the present question than was requisitein the solution and unfolding of the questions handled in thepreceding books; for it is not with ordinary men, but withphilosophers that we must confer concerning the theologywhich they call natural. For it is not like the fabulous, thatis, the theatrical; nor the civil, that is, the urban theology:the one of which displays the crimes of the gods, whilst theother manifests their criminal desires, which demonstrate themto be rather malign demons than gods. It is, we say, withphilosophers we have to confer with respect to this theology,—men whose very name, if rendered into Latin, signifies thosewho profess the love of wisdom. Now, if wisdom is God,who made all things, as is attested by the divine authorityand truth, then the philosopher is a lover of God. But sincethe thing itself, which is called by this name, exists not in allwho glory in the name, for it does not follow, of course, thatVOL. L1 Wisdom vii. 24-27.U306 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK VIILall who are called philosophers are lovers of true wisdom,—we must needs select from the number of those with whoseopinions we have been able to acquaint ourselves by reading,some with whom we may not unworthily engage in the treatment of this question. For I have not in this work undertaken to refute all the vain opinions of the philosophers,but only such as pertain to theology, which Greek word weunderstand to mean an account or explanation of the divinenature. Nor, again, have I undertaken to refute all the vaintheological opinions of all the philosophers, but only of suchof them as, agreeing in the belief that there is a divine nature,and that this divine nature is concerned about human affairs,do nevertheless deny that the worship of the one unchangeableGod is sufficient for the obtaining of a blessed life after death,as well as at the present time; and hold that, in order toobtain that life, many gods, created, indeed, and appointed totheir several spheres by that one God, are to be worshipped.These approach nearer to the truth than even Varro; for,whilst he saw no difficulty in extending natural theology inits entirety even to the world and the soul of the world, theseacknowledge God as existing above all that is of the nature ofsoul, and as the Creator not only of this visible world, whichis often called heaven and earth, but also of every soul whatsoever, and as Him who gives blessedness to the rational soul,-of which kind is the human soul,-by participation in Hisown unchangeable and incorporeal light. There is no one,who has even a slender knowledge of these things, who doesnot know of the Platonic philosophers, who derive their namefrom their master Plato. Concerning this Plato, then, I willbriefly state such things as I deem necessary to the presentquestion, mentioning beforehand those who preceded him intime in the same department of literature.2. Concerning the two schools ofphilosophers, that is, the Italic and Ionic, andtheir founders.As far as concerns the literature of the Greeks, whoselanguage holds a more illustrious place than any of the languages of the other nations, history mentions two schools ofphilosophers, the one called the Italic school, originating inthat part of Italy which was formerly called Magna Græcia;BOOK VIII. ] EARLY PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS. 307the other called the Ionic school, having its origin in thoseregions which are still called by the name of Greece. TheItalic school had for its founder Pythagoras of Samos, to whomalso the term " philosophy" is said to owe its origin. Forwhereas formerly those who seemed to excel others by thelaudable manner in which they regulated their lives werecalled sages, Pythagoras, on being asked what he professed,replied that he was a philosopher, that is, a student or loverof wisdom; for it seemed to him to be the height of arroganceto profess oneself a sage.¹ The founder of the Ionic school,again, was Thales of Miletus, one of those seven who werestyled the " seven sages," of whom six were distinguished bythe kind of life they lived, and by certain maxims which theygave forth for the proper conduct of life. Thales was distinguished as an investigator into the nature of things; and, inorder that he might have successors in his school, he committed his dissertations to writing. That, however, whichespecially rendered him eminent was his ability, by means ofastronomical calculations, even to predict eclipses of the sunand moon. He thought, however, that water was the firstprinciple of things, and that of it all the elements of theworld, the world itself, and all things which are generated init, ultimately consist. Over all this work, however, which,when we consider the world, appears so admirable, he setnothing of the nature of divine mind. To him succeededAnaximander, his pupil, who held a different opinion concerning the nature of things; for he did not hold that all thingsspring from one principle, as Thales did, who held that principle to be water, but thought that each thing springs from itsown proper principle. These principles of things he believedto be infinite in number, and thought that they generatedinnumerable worlds, and all the things which arise in them.He thought, also, that these worlds are subject to a perpetualprocess of alternate dissolution and regeneration, each onecontinuing for a longer or shorter period of time, accordingto the nature of the case; nor did he, any more than Thales,attribute anything to a divine mind in the production of allthis activity of things. Anaximander left as his successor his1 "Sapiens, " that is, a wise man, one who had attained to wisdom.308 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VIII.disciple Anaximenes, who attributed all the causes of thingsto an infinite air. He neither denied nor ignored the existenceof gods, but, so far from believing that the air was made bythem, he held, on the contrary, that they sprang from the air.Anaxagoras, however, who was his pupil, perceived that adivine mind was the productive cause of all things which wesee, and said that all the various kinds of things, accordingto their several modes and species, were produced out of aninfinite matter consisting of homogeneous particles, but by theefficiency of a divine mind. Diogenes, also, another pupil ofAnaximenes, said that a certain air was the original substanceof things out of which all things were produced, but that itwas possessed of a divine reason, without which nothing couldbe produced from it. Anaxagoras was succeeded by his disciple Archelaus, who also thought that all things consisted ofhomogeneous particles, of which each particular thing wasmade, but that those particles were pervaded by a divinemind, which perpetually energized all the eternal bodies,namely, those particles, so that they are alternately unitedand separated. Socrates, the master of Plato, is said to havebeen the disciple of Archelaus; and on Plato's account it isthat I have given this brief historical sketch of the wholehistory of these schools.3. Ofthe Socratic philosophy.Socrates is said to have been the first who directed theentire effort of philosophy to the correction and regulation ofmanners, all who went before him having expended theirgreatest efforts in the investigation of physical, that is, naturalphenomena. However, it seems to me that it cannot becertainly discovered whether Socrates did this because he waswearied of obscure and uncertain things, and so wished todirect his mind to the discovery of something manifest andcertain, which was necessary in order to the obtaining of ablessed life, that one great object toward which the labour,vigilance, and industry of all philosophers seem to have beendirected,- -or whether (as some yet more favourable to himsuppose) he did it because he was unwilling that mindsdefiled with earthly desires should essay to raise themselvesupward to divine things. For he saw that the causes ofBOOK VIII. ] SOCRATES. 309things were sought for by them,-which causes he believed tobe ultimately reducible to nothing else than the will of theone true and supreme God, —and on this account he thoughtthey could only be comprehended by a purified mind; andtherefore that all diligence ought to be given to the purification of the life by good morals, in order that the mind,delivered from the depressing weight of lusts, might raiseitself upward by its native vigour to eternal things, andmight, with purified understanding, contemplate that naturewhich is incorporeal and unchangeable light, where live thecauses of all created natures. It is evident, however, thathe hunted out and pursued, with a wonderful pleasantnessof style and argument, and with a most pointed and insinuating urbanity, the foolishness of ignorant men, who thoughtthat they knew this or that, sometimes confessing his ownignorance, and sometimes dissimulating his knowledge, evenin those very moral questions to which he seems to havedirected the whole force of his mind. And hence there arosehostility against him, which ended in his being calumniouslyimpeached, and condemned to death. Afterwards, however,that very city of the Athenians, which had publicly condemned him, did publicly bewail him, -the popular indignation having turned with such vehemence on his accusers, thatone of them perished by the violence of the multitude, whilstthe other only escaped a like punishment by voluntary andperpetual exile.Illustrious, therefore, both in his life and in his death,Socrates left very many disciples of his philosophy, whovied with one another in desire for proficiency in handling those moral questions which concern the chief good(summum bonum), the possession of which can make a manblessed; and because, in the disputations of Socrates, wherehe raises all manner of questions, makes assertions, andthen demolishes them, it did not evidently appear what heheld to be the chief good, every one took from these disputations what pleased him best, and every one placed thefinal good¹ in whatever it appeared to himself to consist.Now, that which is called the final good is that at which,¹ Finem boni.310 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VIII. .when one has arrived, he is blessed. But so diverse werethe opinions held by those followers of Socrates concerningthis final good, that (a thing scarcely to be credited withrespect to the followers of one master) some placed the chiefgood in pleasure, as Aristippus, others in virtue, as Antisthenes. Indeed, it were tedious to recount the variousopinions of various disciples.4. Concerning Plato, the chief among the disciples of Socrates, and histhreefold division ofphilosophy.But, among the disciples of Socrates, Plato was the one whoshone with a glory which far excelled that of the others, andwho not unjustly eclipsed them all. By birth an Athenianof honourable parentage, he far surpassed his fellow- disciplesin natural endowments, of which he was possessed in a wonderful degree. Yet, deeming himself and the Socratic disciplinefar from sufficient for bringing philosophy to perfection, hetravelled as extensively as he was able, going to every placefamed for the cultivation of any science of which he could make himself master. Thus he learned from the Egyptianswhatever they held and taught as important; and from Egypt,passing into those parts of Italy which were filled with thefame of the Pythagoreans, he mastered, with the greatestfacility, and under the most eminent teachers, all the Italicphilosophy which was then in vogue. And, as he had apeculiar love for his master Socrates, he made him the speakerin all his dialogues, putting into his mouth whatever he hadlearned, either from others, or from the efforts of his ownpowerful intellect, tempering even his moral disputations withthe grace and politeness of the Socratic style. And, as thestudy of wisdom consists in action and contemplation, so thatone part of it may be called active, and the other contemplative, the active part having reference to the conduct of life,that is, to the regulation of morals, and the contemplative partto the investigation into the causes of nature and into puretruth, Socrates is said to have excelled in the active part ofthat study, while Pythagoras gave more attention to its contemplative part, on which he brought to bear all the force ofhis great intellect. To Plato is given the praise of havingperfected philosophy by combining both parts into one.HeBOOK VIII. ]PLATO. 311then divides it into three parts, the first moral, which ischiefly occupied with action; the second natural, of which theobject is contemplation; and the third rational, which discriminates between the true and the false. And though thislast is necessary both to action and contemplation, it iscontemplation, nevertheless, which lays peculiar claim to theoffice of investigating the nature of truth. Thus this tripartite division is not contrary to that which made the study ofwisdom to consist in action and contemplation. Now, as towhat Plato thought with respect to each of these parts,-thatis, what he believed to be the end of all actions, the cause ofall natures, and the light of all intelligences ,-it would be aquestion too long to discuss, and about which we ought notto make any rash affirmation. For, as Plato liked and constantly affected the well- known method of his master Socrates,namely, that of dissimulating his knowledge or his opinions,it is not easy to discover clearly what he himself thought onvarious matters, any more than it is to discover what werethe real opinions of Socrates. We must, nevertheless, insertinto our work certain of those opinions which he expresses inhis writings, whether he himself uttered them, or narratesthem as expressed by others, and seems himself to approveof,-opinions sometimes favourable to the true religion, whichour faith takes up and defends, and sometimes contrary to it,as, for example, in the questions concerning the existence ofone God or of many, as it relates to the truly blessed lifewhich is to be after death. For those who are praised ashaving most closely followed Plato, who is justly preferred toall the other philosophers of the Gentiles, and who are saidto have manifested the greatest acuteness in understandinghim, do perhaps entertain such an idea of God as to admitthat in Him are to be found the cause of existence, the ultimate reason for the understanding, and the end in referenceto which the whole life is to be regulated. Of which threethings, the first is understood to pertain to the natural, thesecond to the rational, and the third to the moral part ofphilosophy. For if man has been so created as to attain,through that which is most excellent in him, to that whichexcels all things,—that is, to the one true and absolutely good312 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VIII..God, without whom no nature exists, no doctrine instructs, noexercise profits,-let Him be sought in whom all things aresecure to us, let Him be discovered in whom all truth becomescertain to us, let Him be loved in whom all becomes rightto us.5. That it is especially with the Platonists that we must carry on our disputations on matters oftheology, their opinions being preferable to those ofallother philosophers.If, then, Plato defined the wise man as one who imitates,knows, loves this God, and who is rendered blessed throughfellowship with Him in His own blessedness, why discusswith the other philosophers? It is evident that none comenearer to us than the Platonists. To them, therefore, let thatfabulous theology give place which delights the minds of menwith the crimes of the gods; and that civil theology also, inwhich impure demons, under the name of gods, have seducedthe peoples of the earth given up to earthly pleasures, desiringto be honoured by the errors of men, and, by filling the mindsof their worshippers with impure desires, exciting them tomake the representation of their crimes one of the rites oftheir worship, whilst they themselves found in the spectatorsof these exhibitions a most pleasing spectacle, -a theology inwhich, whatever was honourable in the temple, was defiled byits mixture with the obscenity of the theatre, and whateverwas base in the theatre was vindicated by the abominationsof the temples. To these philosophers also the interpretationsof Varro must give place, in which he explains the sacred ritesas having reference to heaven and earth, and to the seeds andoperations of perishable things; for, in the first place, thoserites have not the signification which he would have men believe is attached to them, and therefore truth does not followhim in his attempt so to interpret them; and even if theyhad this signification, still those things ought not to be worshipped by the rational soul as its god which are placed belowit in the scale of nature, nor ought the soul to prefer to itselfas gods things to which the true God has given it the preference. The same must be said of those writings pertaining tothe sacred rites, which Numa Pompilius took care to concealby causing them to be buried along with himself, and which,BOOK VIII. ] SUPERIORITY OF PLATONISM. 313when they were afterwards turned up by the plough, wereburned by order of the senate. And, to treat Numa withall honour, let us mention as belonging to the same rank asthese writings that which Alexander of Macedon wrote to hismother as communicated to him by Leo, an Egyptian highpriest. In this letter not only Picus and Faunus, and Æneasand Romulus, or even Hercules and Esculapius and Liber,born of Semele, and the twin sons of Tyndareus, or anyother mortals who have been deified, but even the principalgods themselves, ¹ to whom Cicero, in his Tusculan questions,alludes without mentioning their names, Jupiter, Juno,Saturn, Vulcan, Vesta, and many others whom Varro attemptsto identify with the parts or the elements of the world, areshown to have been men. There is, as we have said, a similarity between this case and that of Numa; for, the priestbeing afraid because he had revealed a mystery, earnestlybegged of Alexander to command his mother to burn the letterwhich conveyed these communications to her. Let these twotheologies, then, the fabulous and the civil, give place to thePlatonic philosophers, who have recognised the true God asthe author of all things, the source of the light of truth, andthe bountiful bestower of all blessedness. And not these only,but to these great acknowledgers of so great a God, thosephilosophers must yield who, having their mind enslaved totheir body, supposed the principles of all things to be material;as Thales, who held that the first principle of all things waswater; Anaximenes, that it was air; the Stoics, that it wasfire; Epicurus, who affirmed that it consisted of atoms, thatis to say, of minute corpuscules; and many others whom it isneedless to enumerate, but who believed that bodies, simpleor compound, animate or inanimate, but nevertheless bodies,were the cause and principle of all things. For some of them—as, for instance, the Epicureans-believed that living thingscould originate from things without life; others held that allthings living or without life spring from a living principle,but that, nevertheless, all things, being material, spring froma material principle. For the Stoics thought that fire, thatis, one of the four material elements of which this visible¹ Dii majorum gentium.? Book i. 13.314 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK VIII..world is composed, was both living and intelligent, the makerof the world and of all things contained in it, that it wasin fact God. These and others like them have only been ableto suppose that which their hearts enslaved to sense havevainly suggested to them. And yet they have within themselves something which they could not see: they representedto themselves inwardly things which they had seen without,even when they were not seeing them, but only thinking ofthem. But this representation in thought is no longer abody, but only the similitude of a body; and that faculty ofthe mind by which this similitude of a body is seen is neithera body nor the similitude of a body; and the faculty whichjudges whether the representation is beautiful or ugly iswithout doubt superior to the object judged of. This principle is the understanding of man, the rational soul; and it iscertainly not a body, since that similitude of a body which itbeholds and judges of is itself not a body. The soul is neitherearth, nor water, nor air, nor fire, of which four bodies, calledthe four elements, we see that this world is composed. Andif the soul is not a body, how should God, its Creator, be abody? Let all those philosophers, then, give place, as wehave said, to the Platonists, and those also who have beenashamed to say that God is a body, but yet have thought thatour souls are of the same nature as God. They have not beenstaggered by the great changeableness of the soul, —an attribute which it would be impious to ascribe to the divine nature,-but they say it is the body which changes the soul, for initself it is unchangeable. As well might they say, " Flesh iswounded by some body, for in itself it is invulnerable." In aword, that which is unchangeable can be changed by nothing,so that that which can be changed by the body cannot properly be said to be immutable.6. Concerning the meaning of the Platonists in that part ofphilosophy calledphysical.These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedlyexalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that nomaterial body is God, and therefore they have transcendedall bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whateveris changeable is not the most high God, and therefore theyBOOK VIII. ] PHYSICAL THEOLOGY OF PLATONISM. 315have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits inseeking the supreme. They have seen also that, in everychangeable thing, the form which makes it that which it is ,whatever be its mode or nature, can only be through Himwho truly is, because He is unchangeable. And therefore,whether we consider the whole body of the world, its figure,qualities, and orderly movement, and also all the bodieswhich are in it; or whether we consider all life, either thatwhich nourishes and maintains, as the life of trees, or thatwhich, besides this, has also sensation, as the life of beasts;or that which adds to all these intelligence, as the life ofman; or that which does not need the support of nutriment,but only maintains, feels, understands, as the life of angels,-all can only be through Him who absolutely is. For to Himit is not one thing to be, and another to live, as though Hecould be, not living; nor is it to Him one thing to live, andanother thing to understand, as though He could live, notunderstanding; nor is it to Him one thing to understand,another thing to be blessed, as though He could understandand not be blessed. But to Him to live, to understand, tobe blessed, are to be. They have understood, from this unchangeableness and this simplicity, that all things must havebeen made by Him, and that He could Himself have beenmade by none. For they have considered that whatever isis either body or life, and that life is something better thanbody, and that the nature of body is sensible, and that oflife intelligible. Therefore they have preferred the intelligiblenature to the sensible. We mean by sensible things suchthings as can be perceived by the sight and touch of the body;by intelligible things, such as can be understood by the sightof the mind. For there is no corporeal beauty, whether inthe condition of a body, as figure, or in its movement, as inmusic, of which it is not the mind that judges. But thiscould never have been, had there not existed in the minditself a superior form of these things, without bulk, withoutnoise of voice, without space and time. But even in respectof these things, had the mind not been mutable, it would nothave been possible for one to judge better than another withregard to sensible forms. He who is clever judges better316 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VIII..than he who is slow, he who is skilled than he who is unskilful, he who is practised than he who is unpractised; andthe same person judges better after he has gained experiencethan he did before. But that which is capable of more andless is mutable; whence able men, who have thought deeplyon these things, have gathered that the first form is not tobe found in those things whose form is changeable. Since,therefore, they saw that body and mind might be more orless beautiful in form, and that, if they wanted form, theycould have no existence, they saw that there is some existence in which is the first form, unchangeable, and thereforenot admitting of degrees of comparison, and in that they mostrightly believed was the first principle of things, which wasnot made, and by which all things were made. Thereforethat which is known of God He manifested to them whenHis invisible things were seen by them, being understoodby those things which have been made; also His eternalpower and Godhead by whom all visible and temporal thingshave been created.¹ We have said enough upon that part oftheology which they call physical, that is, natural.7. How much the Platonists are to be held as excelling other philosophers inlogic, i.e. rational philosophy.Then, again, as far as regards the doctrine which treats ofthat which they call logic, that is, rational philosophy, far beit from us to compare them with those who attributed tothe bodily senses the faculty of discriminating truth, andthought that all we learn is to be measured by their untrustworthy and fallacious rules. Such were the Epicureans,and all of the same school. Such also were the Stoics, whoascribed to the bodily senses that expertness in disputationwhich they so ardently love, called by them dialectic, asserting that from the senses the mind conceives the notions(evvoiai) of those things which they explicate by definition.And hence is developed the whole plan and connection oftheir learning and teaching. I often wonder, with respect tothis, how they can say that none are beautiful but the wise;for by what bodily sense have they perceived that beauty,by what eyes of the flesh have they seen wisdom's comeli1 Rom. i. 19, 20.BOOK VIII. ]ETHICS OF PLATONISM. 317ness of form? Those, however, whom we justly rank beforeall others, have distinguished those things which are conceived by the mind from those which are perceived by thesenses, neither taking away from the senses anything towhich they are competent, nor attributing to them anythingbeyond their competency. And the light of our understandings, by which all things are learned by us, they have affirmedto be that selfsame God by whom all things were made.8. That the Platonists hold the first rank in moral philosophy also.The remaining part of philosophy is morals, or what iscalled by the Greeks noký, in which is discussed the questionconcerning the chief good, -that which will leave us nothingfurther to seek in order to be blessed, if only we make allour actions refer to it, and seek it not for the sake of something else, but for its own sake. Therefore it is called theend, because we wish other things on account of it, but itselfonly for its own sake. This beatific good, therefore, accordingto some, comes to a man from the body, according to others,from the mind, and, according to others, from both together.For they saw that man himself consists of soul and body;and therefore they believed that from either of these two,or from both together, their well-being must proceed, consisting in a certain final good, which could render them blessed,and to which they might refer all their actions, not requiringanything ulterior to which to refer that good itself. This iswhy those who have added a third kind of good things, whichthey call extrinsic,-as honour, glory, wealth, and the like, —have not regarded them as part of the final good, that is, to besought after for their own sake, but as things which are to besought for the sake of something else, affirming that this kindof good is good to the good, and evil to the evil. Wherefore, whether they have sought the good of man from themind or from the body, or from both together, it is still onlyfrom man they have supposed that it must be sought. Butthey who have sought it from the body have sought it fromthe inferior part of man; they who have sought it from themind, from the superior part; and they who have sought itfrom both, from the whole man. Whether, therefore, they318 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VIII.have sought it from any part, or from the whole man, stillthey have only sought it from man; nor have these differences, being three, given rise only to three dissentient sectsof philosophers, but to many. For diverse philosophers haveheld diverse opinions, both concerning the good of the body,and the good of the mind, and the good of both together.Let, therefore, all these give place to those philosophers whohave not affirmed that a man is blessed by the enjoyment ofthe body, or by the enjoyment of the mind, but by the enjoyment of God, enjoying Him, however, not as the mind doesthe body or itself, or as one friend enjoys another, but as theeye enjoys light, if, indeed, we may draw any comparisonbetween these things. But what the nature of this comparison is, will, if God help me, be shown in another place, to thebest of my ability. At present, it is sufficient to mentionthat Plato determined the final good to be to live accordingto virtue, and affirmed that he only can attain to virtue whoknows and imitates God, -which knowledge and imitation arethe only cause of blessedness. Therefore he did not doubtthat to philosophize is to love God, whose nature is incorporeal. Whence it certainly follows that the student ofwisdom, that is, the philosopher, will then become blessedwhen he shall have begun to enjoy God. For though he isnot necessarily blessed who enjoys that which he loves (formany are miserable by loving that which ought not to beloved, and still more miserable when they enjoy it), nevertheless no one is blessed who does not enjoy that which he loves.For even they who love things which ought not to be loveddo not count themselves blessed by loving merely, but byenjoying them. Who, then, but the most miserable will denythat he is blessed, who enjoys that which he loves, and lovesthe true and highest good? But the true and highest good,according to Plato, is God, and therefore he would call hima philosopher who loves God; for philosophy is directed to theobtaining of the blessed life, and he who loves God is blessedin the enjoyment of God.9. Concerning that philosophy which has come nearest to the Christianfaith.Whatever philosophers, therefore, thought concerning thesupreme God, that He is both the maker of all created things,BOOK VIII. ] PLATONISM NEAREST CHRISTIANITY. 319the light by which things are known, and the good in referenceto which things are to be done; that we have in Him thefirst principle of nature, the truth of doctrine, and the happiness of life , whether these philosophers may be more suitablycalled Platonists, or whether they may give some other nameto their sect; whether, we say, that only the chief men of theIonic school, such as Plato himself, and they who have wellunderstood him, have thought thus; or whether we also include the Italic school, on account of Pythagoras and thePythagoreans, and all who may have held like opinions; and,lastly, whether also we include all who have been held wisemen and philosophers among all nations who are discovered tohave seen and taught this, be they Atlantics, Libyans, Egyptians,Indians, Persians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Gauls, Spaniards, orof other nations, we prefer these to all other philosophers,and confess that they approach nearest to us.10. That the excellency ofthe Christian religion is above all the science ofphilosophers.For although a Christian man instructed only in ecclesiastical literature may perhaps be ignorant of the very name ofPlatonists, and may not even know that there have existedtwo schools of philosophers speaking the Greek tongue, towit, the Ionic and Italic, he is nevertheless not so deaf withrespect to human affairs, as not to know that philosophersprofess the study, and even the possession, of wisdom. Heis on his guard, however, with respect to those who philosophize according to the elements of this world, not accordingto God, by whom the world itself was made; for he is warnedby the precept of the apostle, and faithfully hears what hasbeen said, " Beware that no one deceive you through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the elements of the world." 1Then, that he may not suppose that all philosophers are suchas do this, he hears the same apostle say concerning certainof them, " Because that which is known of God is manifestamong them, for God has manifested it to them. For Hisinvisible things from the creation of the world are clearlyseen, being understood by the things which are made, also1 Col. ii. 8.320 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VIII. ." 3" 1His eternal power and Godhead." And, when speaking tothe Athenians, after having spoken a mighty thing concerningGod, which few are able to understand, " In Him we live, andmove, and have our being," he goes on to say, " As certainalso of your own have said." He knows well, too, to be onhis guard against even these philosophers in their errors. Forwhere it has been said by him, " that God has manifested tothem by those things which are made His invisible things, thatthey might be seen by the understanding," there it has alsobeen said that they did not rightly worship God Himself,because they paid divine honours, which are due to Himalone, to other things also to which they ought not to havepaid them, " because, knowing God, they glorified Him not asGod; neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professingthemselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed theglory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the imageof corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted beasts, andcreeping things;' where the apostle would have usunderstand him as meaning the Romans, and Greeks, andEgyptians, who gloried in the name of wisdom; but concerning this we will dispute with them afterwards. Withrespect, however, to that wherein they agree with us weprefer them to all others, namely, concerning the one God,the author of this universe, who is not only above every body,being incorporeal, but also above all souls, being incorruptible-our principle, our light, our good. And though theChristian man, being ignorant of their writings, does not usein disputation words which he has not learned,—not callingthat part of philosophy natural (which is the Latin term), orphysical (which is the Greek one), which treats of the investigation of nature; or that part rational, or logical, which dealswith the question how truth may be discovered; or that partmoral, or ethical, which concerns morals, and shows how goodis to be sought, and evil to be shunned, he is not, therefore,ignorant that it is from the one true and supremely good Godthat we have that nature in which we are made in the imageof God, and that doctrine by which we know Him and our1 Rom. i. 19, 20. 2 Acts xvii. 28. 3 Rom. i. 21-23.BOOK VIII. ] HOW THIS IS ACCOUNTED FOR. 321selves, and that grace through which, by cleaving to Him, weare blessed. This, therefore, is the cause why we prefer theseto all the others, because, whilst other philosophers have wornout their minds and powers in seeking the causes of things,and endeavouring to discover the right mode of learning andof living, these, by knowing God, have found where resides thecause by which the universe has been constituted, and thelight by which truth is to be discovered, and the fountain atwhich felicity is to be drunk. All philosophers, then, whohave had these thoughts concerning God, whether Platonistsor others, agree with us. But we have thought it better toplead our cause with the Platonists, because their writings arebetter known. For the Greeks, whose tongue holds the highestplace among the languages of the Gentiles, are loud in theirpraises of these writings; and the Latins, taken with theirexcellence, or their renown, have studied them more heartilythan other writings, and, by translating them into our tongue,have given them greater celebrity and notoriety.11. How Plato has been able to approach so nearly to Christian knowledge.1Certain partakers with us in the grace of Christ, wonderwhen they hear and read that Plato had conceptions concerning God, in which they recognise considerable agreement withthe truth of our religion. Some have concluded from this,that when he went to Egypt he had heard the prophet Jeremiah, or, whilst travelling in the same country, had read theprophetic scriptures, which opinion I myself have expressedin certain of my writings. But a careful calculation of dates,contained in chronological history, shows that Plato was bornabout a hundred years after the time in which Jeremiah prophesied, and, as he lived eighty-one years, there are found tohave been about seventy years from his death to that timewhen Ptolemy, king of Egypt, requested the prophetic scriptures of the Hebrew people to be sent to him from Judea,and committed them to seventy Hebrews, who also knew theGreek tongue, to be translated and kept. Therefore, on thatvoyage of his, Plato could neither have seen Jeremiah, whowas dead so long before, nor have read those same scriptures' De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 43. Comp. Retract. ii. 4, 2.VOL. L X322 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK VIII. .which had not yet been translated into the Greek language, ofwhich he was a master, unless, indeed, we say that, as hewas most earnest in the pursuit of knowledge, he also studiedthose writings through an interpreter, as he did those of theEgyptians, -not, indeed, writing a translation of them (thefacilities for doing which were only gained even by Ptolemyin return for munificent acts of kindness, though fear of hiskingly authority might have seemed a sufficient motive), butlearning as much as he possibly could concerning their contentsby means of conversation. What warrants this supposition isthe opening verses of Genesis: " In the beginning God madethe heaven and earth. And the earth was invisible, andwithout order; and darkness was over the abyss: and theSpirit of God moved over the waters."2 For in the Timæus,when writing on the formation of the world, he says that Godfirst united earth and fire; from which it is evident that heassigns to fire a place in heaven. This opinion bears a certainresemblance to the statement, " In the beginning God madeheaven and earth." Plato next speaks of those two intermediary elements, water and air, by which the other twoextremes, namely, earth and fire, were mutually united;from which circumstance he is thought to have so understoodthe words, "The Spirit of God moved over the waters. " For,not paying sufficient attention to the designations given bythose scriptures to the Spirit of God, he may have thoughtthat the four elements are spoken of in that place, becausethe air also is called spirit. Then, as to Plato's saying thatthe philosopher is a lover of God, nothing shines forth moreconspicuously in those sacred writings. But the most strikingthing in this connection, and that which most of all inclinesme almost to assent to the opinion that Plato was not ignorantof those writings, is the answer which was given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the words of Godwere conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked whatwas the name of that God who was commanding him to goand deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was3' Liberating Jewish slaves, and sending gifts to the temple. See Josephus,Ant. xii. 2.2 Gen. i. 1, 2.8 Spiritus.BOOK VIII. ] POLYTHEISM OF PLATONISTS. 323given: " I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children ofIsrael, He who is sent me unto you;" as though comparedwith Him that truly is, because He is unchangeable, thosethings which have been created mutable are not,—a truthwhich Plato vehemently held, and most diligently commended.And I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere to befound in the books of those who were before Plato, unless inthat book where it is said, " I am who am; and thou shaltsay to the children of Israel, Who is sent me unto you."12. That even the Platonists, though they say these things concerning the onetrue God, nevertheless thought that sacred rites were to be performed inhonour ofmanygods.But we need not determine from what source he learnedthese things, whether it was from the books of the ancientswho preceded him, or, as is more likely, from the words ofthe apostle: " Because that which is known of God has beenmanifested among them, for God hath manifested it to them.For His invisible things from the creation of the world areclearly seen, being understood by those things which havebeen made, also His eternal power and Godhead." Fromwhatever source he may have derived this knowledge, then, Ithink I have made it sufficiently plain that I have not chosenthe Platonic philosophers undeservedly as the parties withwhom to discuss; because the question we have just takenup concerns the natural theology, the question, namely,whether sacred rites are to be performed to one God, or tomany, for the sake of the happiness which is to be after death.I have specially chosen them because their juster thoughtsconcerning the one God who made heaven and earth, havemade them illustrious among philosophers. This has giventhem such superiority to all others in the judgment of posterity, that, though Aristotle, the disciple of Plato, a man ofeminent abilities, inferior in eloquence to Plato, yet far superiorto many in that respect, had founded the Peripatetic sect,—socalled because they were in the habit of walking about duringtheir disputations, —and though he had, through the greatnessof his fame, gathered very many disciples into his school, evenduring the life of his master; and though Plato at his death' Ex. iii. 14. * Rom. i. 20.324 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VIII. .was succeeded in his school, which was called the Academy,by Speusippus, his sister's son, and Xenocrates, his beloveddisciple, who, together with their successors, were called fromthis name of the school, Academics; nevertheless the mostillustrious recent philosophers, who have chosen to follow Plato,have been unwilling to be called Peripatetics, or Academics,but have preferred the name of Platonists. Among thesewere the renowned Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyry, whowere Greeks, and the African Apuleius, who was learned bothin the Greek and Latin tongues. All these, however, and therest who were of the same school, and also Plato himself,thought that sacred rites ought to be performed in honour ofmany gods.13. Concerning the opinion of Plato, according to which he defined the godsas beings entirely good and the friends ofvirtue.Therefore, although in many other important respects theydiffer from us, nevertheless with respect to this particularpoint of difference, which I have just stated, as it is one ofgreat moment, and the question on hand concerns it, I willfirst ask them to what gods they think that sacred rites areto be performed, to the good or to the bad, or to both thegood and the bad? But we have the opinion of Plato affirming that all the gods are good, and that there is not one of thegods bad. It follows, therefore, that these are to be performedto the good, for then they are performed to gods; for if theyare not good, neither are they gods. Now, if this be the case(for what else ought we to believe concerning the gods?) , certainly it explodes the opinion that the bad gods are to bepropitiated by sacred rites in order that they may not harmus, but the good gods are to be invoked in order that theymay assist us. For there are no bad gods, and it is to thegood that, as they say, the due honour of such rites is tobe paid. Of what character, then, are those gods who lovescenic displays, even demanding that a place be given themamong divine things, and that they be exhibited in theirhonour? The power of these gods proves that they exist,but their liking such things proves that they are bad. For itis well known what Plato's opinion was concerning scenicplays. He thinks that the poets themselves, because theyBOOK VIII. ] INCONSISTENCY OF PLATONISTS. 325have composed songs so unworthy of the majesty and goodness of the gods, ought to be banished from the state. Ofwhat character, therefore, are those gods who contend withPlato himself about those scenic plays? He does not sufferthe gods to be defamed by false crimes; the gods commandthose same crimes to be celebrated in their own honour.In fine, when they ordered these plays to be inaugurated,they not only demanded base things, but also did cruel things,taking from Titus Latinius his son, and sending a diseaseupon him because he had refused to obey them, which theyremoved when he had fulfilled their commands. Plato, however, bad though they were, did not think they were to befeared; but, holding to his opinion with the utmost firmnessand constancy, does not hesitate to remove from a wellordered state all the sacrilegious follies of the poets, withwhich these gods are delighted because they themselves areimpure. But Labeo places this same Plato (as I have mentioned already in the second book¹ ) among the demi-gods.Now Labeo thinks that the bad deities are to be propitiatedwith bloody victims, and by fasts accompanied with the same,but the good deities with plays, and all other things whichare associated with joyfulness. How comes it, then, that thedemi-god Plato so persistently dares to take away those pleasures, because he deems them base, not from the demi- godsbut from the gods, and these the good gods? And, moreover,those very gods themselves do certainly refute the opinion ofLabeo, for they showed themselves in the case of Latinius tobe not only wanton and sportive, but also cruel and terrible.Let the Platonists, therefore, explain these things to us, since,following the opinion of their master, they think that all thegods are good and honourable, and friendly to the virtues ofthe wise, holding it unlawful to think otherwise concerningany of the gods. We will explain it, say they. Let us thenattentively listen to them.14. Ofthe opinion ofthose who have said that rational souls are ofthree kinds,to wit, those ofthe celestial gods, those of the aerial demons, and those of terrestrial men.There is, say they, a threefold division of all animals en1 Ch. 14.326 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK VIII. .dowed with a rational soul, namely, into gods, men, and demons.The gods occupy the loftiest region, men the lowest, thedemons the middle region. For the abode of the gods isheaven, that of men the earth, that of the demons the air.As the dignity of their regions is diverse, so also is that oftheir natures; therefore the gods are better than men anddemons. Men have been placed below the gods and demons,both in respect of the order of the regions they inhabit, andthe difference of their merits. The demons, therefore, whohold the middle place, as they are inferior to the gods, thanwhom they inhabit a lower region, so they are superior tomen, than whom they inhabit a loftier one. For they haveimmortality of body in common with the gods, but passions ofthe mind in common with men. On which account, say they,it is not wonderful that they are delighted with the obscenities of the theatre, and the fictions of the poets, since they arealso subject to human passions, from which the gods are farremoved, and to which they are altogether strangers. Whencewe conclude that it was not the gods, who are all good andhighly exalted, that Plato deprived of the pleasure of theatricplays, by reprobating and prohibiting the fictions of the poets,but the demons.•Of these things many have written: among others Apuleius,the Platonist of Madaura, who composed a whole work on thesubject, entitled, Concerning the God of Socrates. He therediscusses and explains of what kind that deity was who attended on Socrates, a sort of familiar, by whom it is said hewas admonished to desist from any action which would notturn out to his advantage. He asserts most distinctly, andproves at great length, that it was not a god but a demon;and he discusses with great diligence the opinion of Platoconcerning the lofty estate of the gods, the lowly estate of men,and the middle estate of demons. These things being so,how did Plato dare to take away, if not from the gods, whomhe removed from all human contagion, certainly from thedemons, all the pleasures of the theatre, by expelling the poetsfrom the state? Evidently in this way he wished to admonishthe human soul, although still confined in these moribundmembers, to despise the shameful commands of the demons,BOOK VIII. ] APULEIUS ON SOCRATES' DEMON. 327and to detest their impurity, and to choose rather the splendour of virtue. But if Plato showed himself virtuous inanswering and prohibiting these things, then certainly it wasshameful of the demons to command them. Therefore eitherApuleius is wrong, and Socrates' familiar did not belong tothis class of deities, or Plato held contradictory opinions, nowhonouring the demons, now removing from the well- regulatedstate the things in which they delighted, or Socrates is not tobe congratulated on the friendship of the demon, of whichApuleius was so ashamed that he entitled his book On theGod of Socrates, whilst according to the tenor of his discussion, wherein he so diligently and at such length distinguishesgods from demons, he ought not to have entitled it, Concerning the God, but Concerning the Demon of Socrates. But hepreferred to put this into the discussion itself rather than intothe title of his book. For, through the sound doctrine whichhas illuminated human society, all, or almost all men havesuch a horror at the name of demons, that every one who,before reading the dissertation of Apuleius, which sets forththe dignity of demons, should have read the title of the book,On the Demon of Socrates, would certainly have thought thatthe author was not a sane man. But what did even Apuleiusfind to praise in the demons, except subtlety and strength ofbody and a higher place of habitation? For when he spokegenerally concerning their manners, he said nothing that wasgood, but very much that was bad. Finally, no one, when hehas read that book, wonders that they desired to have eventhe obscenity of the stage among divine things, or that, wishing to be thought gods, they should be delighted with thecrimes of the gods, or that all those sacred solemnities, whoseobscenity occasions laughter, and whose shameful cruelty causeshorror, should be in agreement with their passions.15. That the demons are not better than men because of their aerial bodies,or on account of their superior place of abode.Wherefore let not the mind truly religious, and submittedto the true God, suppose that demons are better than men,because they have better bodies. Otherwise it must putmany beasts before itself which are superior to us both inacuteness of the senses, in ease and quickness of movement,328 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK VIII.in strength and in long-continued vigour of body.Whatman can equal the eagle or the vulture in strength of vision?Who can equal the dog in acuteness of smell? Who canequal the hare, the stag, and all the birds in swiftness? Whocan equal in strength the lion or the elephant? Who canequal in length of life the serpents, which are affirmed toput off old age along with their skin, and to return to youthagain? But as we are better than all these by the possession of reason and understanding, so we ought also to be betterthan the demons by living good and virtuous lives. Fordivine providence gave to them bodies of a better qualitythan ours, that that in which we excel them might in thisway be commended to us as deserving to be far more caredfor than the body, and that we should learn to despise thebodily excellence of the demons compared with goodness oflife, in respect of which we are better than they, knowing thatwe too shall have immortality of body,—not an immortalitytortured by eternal punishment, but that which is consequenton purity of soul.But now, as regards loftiness of place, it is altogether ridiculous to be so influenced by the fact that the demons inhabitthe air, and we the earth, as to think that on that accountthey are to be put before us; for in this way we put all thebirds before ourselves. But the birds, when they are wearywith flying, or require to repair their bodies with food, comeback to the earth to rest or to feed, which the demons, theysay, do not. Are they, therefore, inclined to say that thebirds are superior to us, and the demons superior to the birds?But if it be madness to think so, there is no reason why weshould think that, on account of their inhabiting a loftierelement, the demons have a claim to our religious submission.But as it is really the case that the birds of the air are notonly not put before us who dwell on the earth, but are evensubjected to us on account of the dignity of the rational soulwhich is in us, so also it is the case that the demons, thoughthey are aerial, are not better than we who are terrestrialbecause the air is higher than the earth, but, on the contrary,men are to be put before demons because their despair is notto be compared to the hope of pious men. Even that law ofBOOK VIII. ]APULEIUS ON DEMONS. 329Plato's, according to which he mutually orders and arrangesthe four elements, inserting between the two extreme elements—namely, fire, which is in the highest degree mobile, and theimmoveable earth-the two middle ones, air and water, thatby how much the air is higher up than the water, and the firethan the air, by so much also are the waters higher thanthe earth, this law, I say, sufficiently admonishes us not toestimate the merits of animated creatures according to thegrades of the elements. And Apuleius himself says that manis a terrestrial animal in common with the rest, who is nevertheless to be put far before aquatic animals, though Plato putsthe waters themselves before the land. By this he wouldhave us understand that the same order is not to be observedwhen the question concerns the merits of animals, though itseems to be the true one in the gradation of bodies; for itappears to be possible that a soul of a higher order may inhabit a body of a lower, and a soul of a lower order a bodyof a higher.16. What Apuleius the Platonist thought concerning the manners andactions ofdemons.The same Apuleius, when speaking concerning the mannersof demons, said that they are agitated with the same perturbations of mind as men; that they are provoked by injuries,propitiated by services and by gifts, rejoice in honours, aredelighted with a variety of sacred rites, and are annoyed ifany of them be neglected. Among other things, he also saysthat on them depend the divinations of augurs, soothsayers,and prophets, and the revelations of dreams; and that fromthem also are the miracles of the magicians. But, whengiving a brief definition of them, he says, " Demons are of ananimal nature, passive in soul, rational in mind, aerial in body,eternal in time." Of which five things, the three first arecommon to them and us, the fourth peculiar to themselves,and the fifth common to them with the gods." But I seethat they have in common with the gods two of the first things,which they have in common with us. For he says that thegods also are animals; and when he is assigning to everyorder of beings its own element, he places us among the other1 De Deo Socratis."22 1330 [BOOK VIII. THE CITY OF GOD.terrestrial animals which live and feel upon the earth. Wherefore, if the demons are animals as to genus, this is common tothem, not only with men, but also with the gods and withbeasts; if they are rational as to their mind, this is commonto them with the gods and with men; if they are eternal intime, this is common to them with the gods only; if they arepassive as to their soul, this is common to them with menonly; if they are aerial in body, in this they are alone. Therefore it is no great thing for them to be of an animal nature,for so also are the beasts; in being rational as to mind, theyare not above ourselves, for so are we also; and as to theirbeing eternal as to time, what is the advantage of that ifthey are not blessed? for better is temporal happiness thaneternal misery. Again, as to their being passive in soul, howare they in this respect above us, since we also are so, butwould not have been so had we not been miserable? Also,as to their being aerial in body, how much value is to be seton that, since a soul of any kind whatsoever is to be set aboveevery body? and therefore religious worship, which ought tobe rendered from the soul, is by no means due to that thingwhich is inferior to the soul. Moreover, if he had, amongthose things which he says belong to demons, enumeratedvirtue, wisdom, happiness, and affirmed that they have thosethings in common with the gods, and, like them, eternally, hewould assuredly have attributed to them something greatly tobe desired, and much to be prized. And even in that case itwould not have been our duty to worship them like God onaccount of these things, but rather to worship Him from whomwe know they had received them. But how much less arethey really worthy of divine honour, -those aerial animals whoare only rational that they may be capable of misery, passivethat they may be actually miserable, and eternal that it maybe impossible for them to end their misery!17. Whether it is proper that men should worship those spirits from whosevices it is necessary that they be freed.Wherefore, to omit other things, and confine our attentionto that which he says is common to the demons with us, let usask this question: If all the four elements are full of their ownanimals, the fire and the air of immortal, and the water and theBOOK VIII. ] APULEIUS ON DEMONS. 331earth of mortal ones, why are the souls of demons agitated bythe whirlwinds and tempests of passions?-for the Greek wordTálos means perturbation, whence he chose to call the demons"passive in soul," because the word passion, which is derivedfrom Tálos, signified a commotion of the mind contrary toreason. Why, then, are these things in the minds of demonswhich are not in beasts? For if anything of this kind appearsin beasts, it is not perturbation, because it is not contrary toreason, of which they are devoid. Now it is foolishness ormisery which is the cause of these perturbations in the case ofmen, for we are not yet blessed in the possession of that perfection of wisdom which is promised to us at last, when weshall be set free from our present mortality. But the gods,they say, are free from these perturbations, because they arenot only eternal, but also blessed; for they also have the samekind of rational souls, but most pure from all spot and plague.Wherefore, if the gods are free from perturbation because theyare blessed, not miserable animals, and the beasts are freefrom them because they are animals which are capable neitherof blessedness nor misery, it remains that the demons, likemen, are subject to perturbations because they are not blessedbut miserable animals. What folly, therefore, or rather whatmadness, to submit ourselves through any sentiment of religionto demons, when it belongs to the true religion to deliver usfrom that depravity which makes us like to them! ForApuleius himself, although he is very sparing toward them,and thinks they are worthy of divine honours, is neverthelesscompelled to confess that they are subject to anger; and thetrue religion commands us not to be moved with anger, butrather to resist it. The demons are won over by gifts; andthe true religion commands us to favour no one on account ofgifts received. The demons are flattered by honours; but thetrue religion commands us by no means to be moved by suchthings. The demons are haters of some men and lovers ofothers, not in consequence of a prudent and calm judgment,but because of what he calls their " passive soul; " whereas thetrue religion commands us to love even our enemies. Lastly,the true religion commands us to put away all disquietudeof heart, and agitation of mind, and also all commotions and332 THE [BOOK VIII.CITY OF GOD.tempests of the soul, which Apuleius asserts to be continuallyswelling and surging in the souls of demons. Why, therefore,except through foolishness and miserable error, shouldst thouhumble thyself to worship a being to whom thou desirest tobe unlike in thy life? And why shouldst thou pay religioushomage to him whom thou art unwilling to imitate, when itis the highest duty of religion to imitate Him whom thou worshippest?18. What kind ofreligion that is which teaches that men ought to employ theadvocacy ofdemons in order to be recommended to thefavour ofthe goodgods.In vain, therefore, have Apuleius, and they who think withhim, conferred on the demons the honour of placing them inthe air, between the ethereal heavens and the earth, that theymay carry to the gods the prayers of men, to men the answers ofthe gods; for Plato held, they say, that no god has intercoursewith man. They who believe these things have thought it unbecoming that men should have intercourse with the gods, andthe gods with men, but a befitting thing that the demonsshould have intercourse with both gods and men, presenting tothe gods the petitions of men, and conveying to men what thegods have granted; so that a chaste man, and one who is astranger to the crimes of the magic arts, must use as patrons,through whom the gods may be induced to hear him, demonswho love these crimes, although the very fact of his not lovingthem ought to have recommended him to them as one whodeserved to be listened to with greater readiness and willingness on their part. They lovethe abominations of the stage,which chastity does not love. They love, in the sorceries ofthe magicians, " a thousand arts of inflicting harm," which innocence does not love. Yet both chastity and innocence, ifthey wish to obtain anything from the gods, will not be ableto do so by their own merits, except their enemies act asmediators on their behalf. Apuleius need not attempt tojustify the fictions of the poets, and the mockeries of the stage.If human modesty can act so faithlessly towards itself as notonly to love shameful things, but even to think that they are¹ Virgil, Æn. 7. 338.BOOK VIII. ] MAGIC ARTS. 333pleasing to the divinity, we can cite on the other side theirown highest authority and teacher, Plato.19. Ofthe impiety of the magic art, which is dependent on the assistanceofmalign spirits.Moreover, against those magic arts, concerning which somemen, exceedingly wretched and exceedingly impious, delightto boast, may not public opinion itself be brought forward asa witness? For why are those arts so severely punished bythe laws, if they are the works of deities who ought to beworshipped? Shall it be said that the Christians have ordainedthose laws by which magic arts are punished? With whatother meaning, except that these sorceries are without doubtpernicious to the human race, did the most illustrious poetsay," By heaven, I swear, and your dear life,Unwillingly these arms I wield,And take, to meet the coming strife,Enchantment's sword and shield. " ¹And that also which he says in another place concerningmagic arts,112 "I've seen him to another place transport the standing corn, "has reference to the fact that the fruits of one field are said tobe transferred to another by these arts which this pestiferousand accursed doctrine teaches. Does not Cicero inform us that,among the laws of the Twelve Tables, that is, the most ancientlaws of the Romans, there was a law written which appointeda punishment to be inflicted on him who should do this? 3Lastly, was it before Christian judges that Apuleius himselfwas accused of magic arts? Had he known these arts to bedivine and pious, and congruous with the works of divinepower, he ought not only to have confessed, but also to haveprofessed them, rather blaming the laws by which these thingswere prohibited and pronounced worthy of condemnation, whilethey ought to have been held worthy of admiration and respect.1 Virgil, En. 4. 492, 493. 2 Virgil, Ec. 8. 99.Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxviii. 2) and others quote the law as running: " Quifruges incantasit, qui malum carmen incantasit. neu alienam segetempelexeris. "¹ Before Claudius, the prefect of Africa, a heathen.334 [ BOOK VIII. THE CITY OF GOD.For by so doing, either he would have persuaded the judges toadopt his own opinion, or, if they had shown their partialityfor unjust laws, and condemned him to death notwithstandinghis praising and commending such things, the demons wouldhave bestowed on his soul such rewards as he deserved, who,in order to proclaim and set forth their divine works, had notfeared the loss of his human life. As our martyrs, when thatreligion was charged on them as a crime, by which they knewthey were made safe and most glorious throughout eternity,did not choose, by denying it, to escape temporal punishments,but rather by confessing, professing, and proclaiming it, byenduring all things for it with fidelity and fortitude, and bydying for it with pious calmness, put to shame the law bywhich that religion was prohibited, and caused its revocation.But there is extant a most copious and eloquent oration ofthis Platonic philosopher, in which he defends himself againstthe charge of practising these arts, affirming that he is whollya stranger to them, and only wishing to show his innocenceby denying such things as cannot be innocently committed.But all the miracles of the magicians, who he thinks are justlydeserving of condemnation, are performed according to theteaching and by the power of demons. Why, then, does hethink that they ought to be honoured? For he asserts thatthey are necessary, in order to present our prayers to the gods,and yet their works are such as we must shun if we wish ourprayers to reach the true God. Again, I ask, what kind ofprayers of men does he suppose are presented to the goodgods by the demons? If magical prayers, they will have nonesuch; if lawful prayers, they will not receive them throughsuch beings. But if a sinner who is penitent pour out prayers,especially if he has committed any crime of sorcery, does hereceive pardon through the intercession of those demons bywhose instigation and help he has fallen into the sin he mourns?or do the demons themselves, in order that they may meritpardon for the penitent, first become penitents because theyhave deceived them? This no one ever said concerning thedemons; for had this been the case, they would never havedared to seek for themselves divine honours. For how shouldthey do so who desired by penitence to obtain the grace ofBOOK VIII. ] MEDIATION OF DEMONS. 335pardon, seeing that such detestable pride could not exist alongwith a humility worthy of pardon?20. Whether we are to believe that the good gods are more willing to have"intercourse with demons than with men.But does any urgent and most pressing cause compel thedemons to mediate between the gods and men, that they mayoffer the prayers of men, and bring back the answers from thegods? and if so, what, pray, is that cause, what is that sogreat necessity? Because, say they, no god has intercoursewith man. Most admirable holiness of God, which has nointercourse with a supplicating man, and yet has intercoursewith an arrogant demon! which has no intercourse with apenitent man, and yet has intercourse with a deceiving demon!which has no intercourse with a man fleeing for refuge to thedivine nature, and yet has intercourse with a demon feigningdivinity! which has no intercourse with a man seeking pardon,and yet has intercourse with a demon persuading to wickedness! which has no intercourse with a man expelling thepoets by means of philosophical writings from a well- regulated state, and yet has intercourse with a demon requestingfrom the princes and priests of a state the theatrical performance of the mockeries of the poets! which has no intercoursewith the man who prohibits the ascribing of crime to thegods, and yet has intercourse with a demon who takes delightin the fictitious representation of their crimes! which has nointercourse with a man punishing the crimes of the magiciansby just laws, and yet has intercourse with a demon teachingand practising magical arts! which has no intercourse with aman shunning the imitation of a demon, and yet has intercourse with a demon lying in wait for the deception of aman!21. Whether the gods use the demons as messengers and interpreters, and whetherthey are deceived by them willingly, or without their own knowledge.But herein, no doubt, lies the great necessity for thisabsurdity, so unworthy of the gods, that the ethereal gods,who are concerned about human affairs, would not know whatterrestrial men were doing unless the aerial demons shouldbring them intelligence, because the ether is suspended faraway from the earth and far above it, but the air is contigu-336 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VIII. .ous both to the ether and to the earth. O admirable wisdom!what else do these men think concerning the gods who, theysay, are all in the highest degree good, but that they areconcerned about human affairs, lest they should seem unworthy of worship, whilst, on the other hand, from thedistance between the elements, they are ignorant of terrestrial things? It is on this account that they have supposedthe demons to be necessary as agents, through whom thegods may inform themselves with respect to human affairs,and through whom, when necessary, they may succour men;and it is on account of this office that the demons themselveshave been held as deserving of worship. If this be the case,then a demon is better known by these good gods throughnearness of body, than a man is by goodness of mind. Omournful necessity! or shall I not rather say detestable andvain error, that I may not impute vanity to the divine nature!For if the gods can, with their minds free from the hindranceof bodies, see our mind, they do not need the demons asmessengers from our mind to them; but if the ethereal gods,by means of their bodies, perceive the corporeal indices ofminds, as the countenance, speech, motion, and thence understand what the demons tell them, then it is also possible thatthey may be deceived by the falsehoods of demons. Moreover,if the divinity of the gods cannot be deceived by the demons,neither can it be ignorant of our actions. But I would theywould tell me whether the demons have informed the godsthat the fictions of the poets concerning the crimes of thegods displease Plato, concealing the pleasure which they themselves take in them; or whether they have concealed both, andhave preferred that the gods should be ignorant with respectto this whole matter, or have told both, as well the piousprudence of Plato with respect to the gods as their own lust,which is injurious to the gods; or whether they have concealedPlato's opinion, according to which he was unwilling that thegods should be defamed with falsely alleged crimes throughthe impious licence of the poets, whilst they have not beenashamed nor afraid to make known their own wickedness,which make them love theatrical plays, in which the infamousdeeds of the gods are celebrated. Let them choose whichBOOK VIII . ] PLATO AND THE DEMONS. 337•they will of these four alternatives, and let them consider howmuch evil any one of them would require them to think of thegods. For if they choose the first, they must then confess thatit was not possible for the good gods to dwell with the goodPlato, though he sought to prohibit things injurious to them,whilst they dwelt with evil demons, who exulted in theirinjuries; and this because they suppose that the good godscan only know a good man, placed at so great a distance fromthem, through the mediation of evil demons, whom they couldknow on account of their nearness to themselves.¹ If theyshall choose the second, and shall say that both these thingsare concealed by the demons, so that the gods are whollyignorant both of Plato's most religious law and the sacrilegious pleasure of the demons, what, in that case, can thegods know to any profit with respect to human affairs throughthese mediating demons, when they do not know those thingswhich are decreed, through the piety of good men, for thehonour of the good gods against the lust of evil demons?But if they shall choose the third, and reply that these intermediary demons have communicated, not only the opinionof Plato, which prohibited wrongs to be done to the gods,but also their own delight in these wrongs, I would ask ifsuch a communication is not rather an insult? Now thegods, hearing both and knowing both, not only permit theapproach of those malign demons, who desire and do thingscontrary to the dignity of the gods and the religion of Plato,but also, through these wicked demons, who are near to them,send good things to the good Plato, who is far away fromthem; for they inhabit such a place in the concatenatedseries of the elements, that they can come into contact withthose by whom they are accused, but not with him by whomthey are defended, —knowing the truth on both sides, but notbeing able to change the weight of the air and the earth.There remains the fourth supposition; but it is worse than therest. For who will suffer it to be said that the demons havemade known the calumnious fictions of the poets concerningthe immortal gods, and also the disgraceful mockeries of thetheatres, and their own most ardent lust after, and most sweet¹ Another reading, " whom they could not know, though near to themselves. "VOL. L Y338 [BOOK VIII.THE CITY OF GOD.pleasure in these things, whilst they have concealed fromthem that Plato, with the gravity of a philosopher, gave it ashis opinion that all these things ought to be removed from awell-regulated republic; so that the good gods are now compelled, through such messengers, to know the evil doings ofthe most wicked beings, that is to say, of the messengersthemselves, and are not allowed to know the good deeds ofthe philosophers, though the former are for the injury, butthese latter for the honour of the gods themselves?22. That we must, notwithstanding the opinion ofApuleius, reject the worshipofdemons.None of these four alternatives, then, is to be chosen; forwe dare not suppose such unbecoming things concerning thegods as the adoption of any one of them would lead us tothink. It remains, therefore, that no credence whatever is tobe given to the opinion of Apuleius and the other philosophersof the same school, namely, that the demons act as messengersand interpreters between the gods and men to carry our petitions from us to the gods, and to bring back to us the help ofthe gods. On the contrary, we must believe them to be spiritsmost eager to inflict harm, utterly alien from righteousness,swollen with pride, pale with envy, subtle in deceit; who dwellindeed in this air as in a prison, in keeping with their owncharacter, because, cast down from the height of the higherheaven, they have been condemned to dwell in this elementas the just reward of irretrievable transgression. But, thoughthe air is situated above the earth and the waters, they arenot on that account superior in merit to men, who, thoughthey do not surpass them as far as their earthly bodies areconcerned, do nevertheless far excel them through piety ofmind, they having made choice of the true God as theirhelper. Over many, however, who are manifestly unworthy ofparticipation in the true religion, they tyrannize as over captives whom they have subdued, the greatest part of whomthey have persuaded of their divinity by wonderful and lyingsigns, consisting either of deeds or of predictions. Some,nevertheless, who have more attentively and diligently considered their vices, they have not been able to persuade thatthey are gods, and so have feigned themselves to be messengersBOOK VIII. ] HERMES TRISMEGISTUS. 339between the gods and men. Some, indeed, have thought thatnot even this latter honour ought to be acknowledged asbelonging to them, not believing that they were gods, becausethey saw that they were wicked, whereas the gods, accordingto their view, are all good. Nevertheless they dared not saythat they were wholly unworthy of all divine honour, forfear of offending the multitude, by whom, through inveteratesuperstition, the demons were served by the performance ofmany rites, and the erection of many temples.23. What Hermes Trismegistus thought concerning idolatry, and from whatsource he knew that the superstitions of Egypt were to be abolished.The Egyptian Hermes, whom they call Trismegistus, hada different opinion concerning those demons. Apuleius,indeed, denies that they are gods; but when he says thatthey hold a middle place between the gods and men, so thatthey seem to be necessary for men as mediators between themand the gods, he does not distinguish between the worshipdue to them and the religious homage due to the supernalgods. This Egyptian, however, says that there are some godsmade by the supreme God, and some made by men. Anyone who hears this, as I have stated it, no doubt supposesthat it has reference to images, because they are the worksof the hands of men; but he asserts that visible and tangibleimages are, as it were, only the bodies of the gods, and thatthere dwell in them certain spirits, which have been invitedto come into them, and which have power to inflict harm, orto fulfil the desires of those by whom divine honours andservices are rendered to them. To unite, therefore, by acertain art, those invisible spirits to visible and materialthings, so as to make, as it were, animated bodies, dedicated and given up to those spirits who inhabit them, —this, he says, is to make gods, adding that men have received this great and wonderful power. I will give thewords of this Egyptian as they have been translated intoour tongue: " And, since we have undertaken to discourseconcerning the relationship and fellowship between menand the gods, know, O Esculapius, the power and strengthof man. As the Lord and Father, or that which is highest,even God, is the maker of the celestial gods, so man is the340 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK VIII. .maker of the gods who are in the temples, content to dwellnear to men." 1 And a little after he says, " Thus humanity,always mindful of its nature and origin, perseveres in theimitation of divinity; and as the Lord and Father madeeternal gods, that they should be like Himself, so humanityfashioned its own gods according to the likeness of its owncountenance. " When this Esculapius, to whom especiallyhe was speaking, had answered him, and had said, " Dost thoumean the statues, O Trismegistus?"—" Yes, the statues," repliedhe, " however unbelieving thou art, O Esculapius, —the statues,animated, and full of sensation and spirit, and who do suchgreat and wonderful things, the statues, prescient of futurethings, and foretelling them by lot, by prophet, by dreams, andmany other things, who bring diseases on men and curethem again, giving them joy or sorrow according to theirmerits. Dost thou not know, O Esculapius, that Egypt is animage of heaven, or, more truly, a translation and descent of allthings which are ordered and transacted there,—that it is, intruth, if we may say so, to be the temple of the whole world?And yet, as it becomes the prudent man to know all thingsbeforehand, ye ought not to be ignorant of this, that there isa time coming when it shall appear that the Egyptians haveall in vain, with pious mind, and with most scrupulous diligence, waited on the divinity, and when all their holy worshipshall come to nought, and be found to be in vain."Hermes then follows out at great length the statements ofthis passage, in which he seems to predict the present time, inwhich the Christian religion is overthrowing all lying figmentswith a vehemence and liberty proportioned to its superior truthand holiness, in order that the grace of the true Saviour maydeliver men from those gods which man has made, and subject them to that God by whom man was made. But whenHermes predicts these things, he speaks as one who is afriend to these same mockeries of demons, and does notclearly express the name of Christ. On the contrary, hedeplores, as if it had already taken place, the future abolitionof those things by the observance of which there was main-' These quotations are from a dialogue between Hermes and Esculapius,which is said to have been translated into Latin by Apuleius.BOOK VIII. ] HERMES CRITICISED. 341" 1tained in Egypt a resemblance of heaven,-he bears witness toChristianity by a kind of mournful prophecy. Now it waswith reference to such that the apostle said, that " knowingGod, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful,but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heartwas darkened; professing themselves to be wise, they becamefools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into thelikeness of the image of corruptible man," and so on, for thewhole passage is too long to quote. For Hermes makes manysuch statements agreeable to the truth concerning the onetrue God who fashioned this world. And I know not howhe has become so bewildered by that " darkening of the heart"as to stumble into the expression of a desire that men shouldalways continue in subjection to those gods which he confesses to be made by men, and to bewail their future removal;as if there could be anything more wretched than mankindtyrannized over by the work of his own hands, since man,by worshipping the works of his own hands, may more easilycease to be man, than the works of his hands can, through hisworship of them, become gods. For it can sooner happenthat man, who has received an honourable position, may,through lack of understanding, become comparable to thebeasts, than that the works of man may become preferable tothe work of God, made in His own image, that is, to manhimself. Wherefore deservedly is man left to fall away fromHim who made him, when he prefers to himself that whichhe himself has made.For these vain, deceitful, pernicious, sacrilegious things didthe Egyptian Hermes sorrow, because he knew that the timewas coming when they should be removed. But his sorrowwas as impudently expressed as his knowledge was imprudentlyobtained; for it was not the Holy Spirit who revealed thesethings to him, as He had done to the holy prophets, who, foreseeing these things, said with exultation, " If a man shall makegods, lo, they are no gods; "2 and in another place, " And it shallcome to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that I will cut offthe names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no morebe remembered. " 3 But the holy Isaiah prophesies expressly1 Rom. i. 21. • Jer. xvi. 20. Zech. xiii. 2.342 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK VIII. .concerning Egypt in reference to this matter, saying, " Andtheidols of Egypt shall be moved at His presence, and their heartshall be overcome in them," ¹ and other things to the same effect.And with the prophet are to be classed those who rejoiced thatthat which they knew was to come had actually come, asSimeon, or Anna, who immediately recognised Jesus when Hewas born, or Elisabeth, who in the Spirit recognised Himwhen He was conceived, or Peter, who said by the revelationof the Father, " Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. " "But to this Egyptian those spirits indicated the time of theirown destruction, who also, when the Lord was present in theflesh, said with trembling, " Art Thou come hither to destroyus before the time? " meaning by destruction before the time,either that very destruction which they expected to come,but which they did not think would come so suddenly as itappeared to have done, or only that destruction which consisted in their being brought into contempt by being madeknown. And, indeed, this was a destruction before the time,that is, before the time of judgment, when they are to bepunished with eternal damnation, together with all men whoare implicated in their wickedness, as the true religion declares, which neither errs nor leads into error; for it is notlike him who, blown hither and thither by every wind ofdoctrine, and mixing true things with things which are false,bewails as about to perish a religion which he afterwardsconfesses to be error.24. How Hermes openly confessed the error ofhisforefathers, the comingdestruction of which he nevertheless bewailed.After a long interval, Hermes again comes back to thesubject of the gods which men have made, saying as follows:" But enough on this subject. Let us return to man and toreason, that divine gift on account of which man has beencalled a rational animal. For the things which have beensaid concerning man, wonderful though they are, are less.wonderful than those which have been said concerning reason.For man to discover the divine nature, and to make it, surpasses the wonder of all other wonderful things. Because,therefore, our forefathers erred very far with respect to the1 Isa. xix. 1. Matt. xvi. 16. 8 Matt. viii. 29.BOOK VIII. ] FOREBODINGS OF HERMES. 343knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through wantof attention to their worship and service, they invented thisart of making gods; and this art once invented, they associatedwith it a suitable virtue borrowed from universal nature, and,being incapable of making souls, they evoked those of demonsor of angels, and united them with these holy images anddivine mysteries, in order that through these souls the imagesmight have power to do good or harm to men." I know notwhether the demons themselves could have been made, evenby adjuration, to confess as he has confessed in these words:" Because our forefathers erred very far with respect to theknowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through wantof attention to their worship and service, they invented theart of making gods." Does he say that it was a moderatedegree of error which resulted in their discovery of the artof making gods, or was he content to say " they erred? " No;he must needs add " very far," and say, " They erred very far."It was this great error and incredulity, then, of their forefathers who did not attend to the worship and service of thegods, which was the origin of the art of making gods.yet this wise man grieves over the ruin of this art at somefuture time, as if it were a divine religion. Is he not verilycompelled by divine influence, on the one hand, to reveal thepast error of his forefathers, and by a diabolical influence, onthe other hand, to bewail the future punishment of demons?For if their forefathers, by erring very far with respect tothe knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and aversionof mind from their worship and service, invented the art ofmaking gods, what wonder is it that all that is done by thisdetestable art, which is opposed to the divine religion, shouldbe taken away by that religion, when truth corrects error,faith refutes incredulity, and conversion rectifies aversion?AndFor if he had only said, without mentioning the cause, thathis forefathers had discovered the art of making gods, it wouldhave been our duty, if we paid any regard to what is rightand pious, to consider and to see that they could never haveattained to this art if they had not erred from the truth, ifthey had believed those things which are worthy of God, ifthey had attended to divine worship and service. However,344 [BOOK VIIL THE CITY OF GOD.if we alone should say that the causes of this art were to befound in the great error and incredulity of men, and aversionof the mind erring from and unfaithful to divine religion, theimpudence of those who resist the truth were in some wayto be borne with; but when he who admires in man, aboveall other things, this power which it has been granted him topractise, and sorrows because a time is coming when all thosefigments of gods invented by men shall even be commandedby the laws to be taken away,-when even this man confesses nevertheless, and explains the causes which led to thediscovery of this art, saying that their ancestors, through greaterror and incredulity, and through not attending to the worship and service of the gods, invented this art of making gods,-what ought we to say, or rather to do, but to give to theLord our God all the thanks we are able, because He hastaken away those things by causes the contrary of thosewhich led to their institution? For that which the prevalence of error instituted, the way of truth took away; thatwhich incredulity instituted, faith took away; that whichaversion from divine worship and service instituted, conversion to the one true and holy God took away. Nor was thisthe case only in Egypt, for which country alone the spirit ofthe demons lamented in Hermes, but in all the earth, whichsings to the Lord a new song,¹ as the truly holy and trulyprophetic Scriptures have predicted, in which it is written,Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all theearth." For the title of this psalm is, " When the housewas built after the captivity." For a house is being builtto the Lord in all the earth, even the city of God, whichis the holy Church, after that captivity in which demonsheld captive those men who, through faith in God, becameliving stones in the house. For although man made gods, itdid not follow that he who made them was not held captiveby them, when, by worshipping them, he was drawn intofellowship with them,-into the fellowship not of stolid idols,but of cunning demons; for what are idols but what theyare represented to be in the same Scriptures, " They have eyes,but they do not see," and, though artistically fashioned, are""1 Ps. xcvi. 1. 2 Ps. cxv. 5, etc.BOOK VIII . ] FOREBODINGS OF HERMES. 345still without life and sensation? But unclean spirits, associated through that wicked art with these same idols, havemiserably taken captive the souls of their worshippers, bybringing them down into fellowship with themselves. Whencethe apostle says, "We know that an idol is nothing, butthose things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice todemons, and not to God; and I would not ye should havefellowship with demons." After this captivity, therefore, inwhich men were held by malign demons, the house of Godis being built in all the earth; whence the title of that psalmin which it is said, " Sing unto the Lord a new song; singunto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, bless Hisname; declare well His salvation from day to day. DeclareHis glory among the nations, among all people His wonderfulthings. For great is the Lord, and much to be praised: He isterrible above all gods. For all the gods of the nations aredemons: but the Lord made the heavens. ""12Wherefore he who sorrowed because a time was coming whenthe worship of idols should be abolished, and the domination ofthe demons over those who worshipped them, wished, under theinfluence of a demon, that that captivity should always continue,at the cessation of which that psalm celebrates the building ofthe house of the Lord in all the earth. Hermes foretold thesethings with grief, the prophet with joyfulness; and becausethe Spirit is victorious who sang these things through theancient prophets, even Hermes himself was compelled in awonderful manner to confess, that those very things whichhe wished not to be removed, and at the prospect of whoseremoval he was sorrowful, had been instituted, not by prudent,faithful, and religious, but by erring and unbelieving men,averse to the worship and service of the gods. And althoughhe calls them gods, nevertheless, when he says that they weremade by such men as we certainly ought not to be, he shows,whether he will or not, that they are not to be worshipped bythose who do not resemble these image-makers, that is, by prudent, faithful, and religious men, at the same time also makingit manifest that the very men who made them involved themselves in the worship of those as gods who were not gods.11 Cor. x. 19, 20. 2 Ps. xcvi. 1-5.346 [BOOK VIII.THE CITY OF GOD."" 1For true is the saying of the prophet, " If a man make gods,lo, they are no gods." Such gods, therefore, acknowledgedby such worshippers and made by such men, did Hermes callgods made by men," that is to say, demons, through someart of I know not what description, bound by the chains oftheir own lusts to images. But, nevertheless, he did notagree with that opinion of the Platonic Apuleius, of whichwe have already shown the incongruity and absurdity, namely,that they were interpreters and intercessors between the godswhom God made, and men whom the same God made, bringingto God the prayers of men, and from God the gifts given inanswer to these prayers. For it is exceedingly stupid tobelieve that gods whom men have made have more influencewith gods whom God has made than men themselves have,whom the very same God has made. And consider, too, thatit is a demon which, bound by a man to an image by meansof an impious art, has been made a god, but a god to such aman only, not to every man. What kind of god, therefore, isthat which no man would make but one erring, incredulous,and averse to the true God? Moreover, if the demons whichare worshipped in the temples, being introduced by some kindof strange art into images, that is, into visible representationsof themselves, by those men who by this art made gods whenthey were straying away from, and were averse to the worshipand service of the gods, -if, I say, those demons are neithermediators nor interpreters between men and the gods, bothon account of their own most wicked and base manners, andbecause men, though erring, incredulous, and averse from theworship and service of the gods, are nevertheless beyonddoubt better than the demons whom they themselves haveevoked, then it remains to be affirmed that what power theypossess they possess as demons, doing harm by bestowingpretended benefits, —harm all the greater for the deception, —orelse openly and undisguisedly doing evil to men. They cannot,however, do anything of this kind unless where they are permitted by the deep and secret providence of God, and thenonly so far as they are permitted. When, however, they arepermitted, it is not because they, being midway between1 Jer. xvi. 20.BOOK VIII. ] THINGS COMMON TO ANGELS AND MEN. 347men and the gods, have through the friendship of the godsgreat power over men; for these demons cannot possibly befriends to the good gods who dwell in the holy and heavenlyhabitation, by whom we mean holy angels and rational creatures, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, orpowers, from whom they are as far separated in dispositionand character as vice is distant from virtue, wickedness fromgoodness.25. Concerning those things which may be common to the holy angels and to men.Wherefore we must by no means seek, through the supposedmediation of demons, to avail ourselves of the benevolence orbeneficence of the gods, or rather of the good angels, butthrough resembling them in the possession of a good will,through which we are with them, and live with them, andworship with them the same God, although we cannot seethem with the eyes of our flesh. But it is not in localitywe are distant from them, but in merit of life, caused by ourmiserable unlikeness to them in will, and by the weaknessof our character; for the mere fact of our dwelling on earthunder the conditions of life in the flesh does not prevent ourfellowship with them. It is only prevented when we, in theimpurity of our hearts, mind earthly things. But in thispresent time, while we are being healed that we may eventually be as they are, we are brought near to them by faith, ifby their assistance we believe that He who is their blessedness is also ours.•26. That all the religion of the pagans has reference to dead men.It is certainly a remarkable thing how this Egyptian, whenexpressing his grief that a time was coming when those thingswould be taken away from Egypt, which he confesses to havebeen invented by men erring, incredulous, and averse to theservice of divine religion, says, among other things, " Thenshall that land, the most holy place of shrines and temples,be full of sepulchres and dead men," as if, in sooth, if thesethings were not taken away, men would not die! as if deadbodies could be buried elsewhere than in the ground! as if,as time advanced, the number of sepulchres must not necessarily increase in proportion to the increase of the number of348 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK VIII.the dead! But they who are of a perverse mind, and opposedto us, suppose that what he grieves for is that the memorialsof our martyrs were to succeed to their temples and shrines,in order, forsooth, that they may have grounds for thinkingthat gods were worshipped by the pagans in temples, but thatdead men are worshipped by us in sepulchres. For with suchblindness do impious men, as it were, stumble over mountains,and will not see the things which strike their own eyes, thatthey do not attend to the fact that in all the literature of thepagans there are not found any, or scarcely any gods, whohave not been men, to whom, when dead, divine honours havebeen paid. I will not enlarge on the fact that Varro saysthat all dead men are thought by them to be gods Manes, andproves it by those sacred rites which are performed in honourof almost all the dead, among which he mentions funeralgames, considering this the very highest proof of divinity,because games are only wont to be celebrated in honour ofdivinities. Hermes himself, of whom we are now treating, inthat same book in which, as if foretelling future things, hesays with sorrow, " Then shall that land, the most holy placeof shrines and temples, be full of sepulchres and dead men,”testifies that the gods of Egypt were dead men. For, havingsaid that their forefathers, erring very far with respect to theknowledge of the gods, incredulous and inattentive to thedivine worship and service, invented the art of making gods,with which art, when invented, they associated the appropriatevirtue which is inherent in universal nature, and by mixingup that virtue with this art, they called forth the souls ofdemons or of angels (for they could not make souls), andcaused them to take possession of, or associate themselveswith holy images and divine mysteries, in order that throughthese souls the images might have power to do good or harmto men; having said this, he goes on, as it were, to proveit by illustrations, saying, " Thy grandsire, O Esculapius, thefirst discoverer of medicine, to whom a temple was consecratedin a mountain of Libya, near to the shore of the crocodiles, inwhich temple lies his earthly man, that is, his body, -for thebetter part of him, or rather the whole of him, if the wholeman is in the intelligent life, went back to heaven,-affordsBOOK VIII. ] WORSHIP OF DEAD MEN. 349even now by his divinity all those helps to infirm men, whichformerly he was wont to afford to them by the art of medicine. " He says, therefore, that a dead man was worshippedas a god in that place where he had his sepulchre. Hedeceives men by a falsehood, for the man "went back toheaven." Then he adds, " Does not Hermes, who was mygrandsire, and whose name I bear, abiding in the countrywhich is called by his name, help and preserve all mortalswho come to him from every quarter?" For this elderHermes, that is, Mercury, who, he says, was his grandsire, issaid to be buried in Hermopolis, that is, in the city calledby his name; so here are two gods whom he affirms tohave been men, Esculapius and Mercury. Now concerningEsculapius, both the Greeks and the Latins think the samething; but as to Mercury, there are many who do not thinkthat he was formerly a mortal, though Hermes testifies thathe was his grandsire. But are these two different individualswho were called by the same name? I will not dispute muchwhether they are different individuals or not. It is sufficientto know that this Mercury of whom Hermes speaks is, as wellas Esculapius, a god who once was a man, according to thetestimony of this same Trismegistus, esteemed so great by hiscountrymen, and also the grandson of Mercury himself.Hermes goes on to say, " But do we know how many goodthings Isis, the wife of Osiris, bestows when she is propitious,and what great opposition she can offer when enraged?"Then, in order to show that there were gods made by menthrough this art, he goes on to say, " For it is easy for earthlyand mundane gods to be angry, being made and composed bymen out of either nature;" thus giving us to understand thathe believed that demons were formerly the souls of dead men,which, as he says, by means of a certain art invented by menvery far in error, incredulous, and irreligious, were caused totake possession of images, because they who made such godswere not able to make souls. When, therefore, he says " eithernature," he means soul and body, the demon being the soul,and the image the body. What, then, becomes of that mournful complaint, that the land of Egypt, the most holy placeof shrines and temples, was to be full of sepulchres and350 [BOOK VIIL THE CITY OF GOD.dead men? Verily, the fallacious spirit, by whose inspirationHermes spoke these things, was compelled to confess throughhim that even already that land was full of sepulchres andof dead men, whom they were worshipping as gods. But itwas the grief of the demons which was expressing itselfthrough his mouth, who were sorrowing on account of thepunishments which were about to fall upon them at thetombs of the martyrs. For in many such places they aretortured and compelled to confess, and are cast out of thebodies of men, of which they had taken possession.27. Concerning the nature of the honour which the Christians pay to their martyrs.But, nevertheless, we do not build temples, and ordainpriests, rites, and sacrifices for these same martyrs; for theyare not our gods, but their God is our God. Certainly wehonour their reliquaries, as the memorials of holy men of Godwho strove for the truth even to the death of their bodies,that the true religion might be made known, and false andfictitious religions exposed. For if there were some beforethem who thought that these religions were really false andfictitious, they were afraid to give expression to their convictions. But who ever heard a priest of the faithful, standingat an altar built for the honour and worship of God over theholy body of some martyr, say in the prayers, I offer to theea sacrifice, O Peter, or O Paul, or O Cyprian? for it is toGod that sacrifices are offered at their tombs, the God whomade them both men and martyrs, and associated them withholy angels in celestial honour; and the reason why we paysuch honours to their memory is, that by so doing we mayboth give thanks to the true God for their victories, and, byrecalling them afresh to remembrance, may stir ourselves upto imitate them by seeking to obtain like crowns and palms,calling to our help that same God on whom they called.Therefore, whatever honours the religious may pay in theplaces of the martyrs, they are but honours rendered to theirmemory, not sacred rites or sacrifices offered to dead men asto gods. And even such as bring thither food,-which, indeed,is not done by the better Christians, and in most places of1 Ornamenta memoriarum.BOOK VIII. ] HONOUR PAID TO CHRISTIAN MARTYRS. 851the world is not done at all,-do so in order that it may besanctified to them through the merits of the martyrs, in thename of the Lord of the martyrs, first presenting the foodand offering prayer, and thereafter taking it away to be eaten,or to be in part bestowed upon the needy. But he whoknows the one sacrifice of Christians, which is the sacrificeoffered in those places, also knows that these are not sacrificesoffered to the martyrs. It is, then, neither with divine honoursnor with human crimes, by which they worship their gods,that we honour our martyrs; neither do we offer sacrifices tothem, or convert the crimes of the gods into their sacred rites.For let those who will and can read the letter of Alexanderto his mother Olympias, in which he tells the things whichwere revealed to him by the priest Leon, and let those whohave read it recall to memory what it contains, that theymay see what great abominations have been handed down tomemory, not by poets, but by the mystic writings of theEgyptians, concerning the goddess Isis, the wife of Osiris, andthe parents of both, all of whom, according to these writings,were royal personages. Isis, when sacrificing to her parents,is said to have discovered a crop of barley, of which shebrought some ears to the king her husband, and his councillorMercurius, and hence they identify her with Ceres. Thosewho read the letter may there see what was the character ofthose people to whom when dead sacred rites were institutedas to gods, and what those deeds of theirs were which furnishedthe occasion for these rites. Let them not once dare to compare in any respect those people, though they hold them to begods, to our holy martyrs, though we do not hold them to begods. For we do not ordain priests and offer sacrifices to ourmartyrs, as they do to their dead men, for that would be incongruous, undue, and unlawful, such being due only to God;and thus we do not delight them with their own crimes, orwith such shameful plays as those in which the crimes ofthe gods are celebrated, which are either real crimes committed by them at a time when they were men, or else, ifthey never were men, fictitious crimes invented for the pleasure of noxious demons. The god of Socrates, if he had a¹ Comp. The Confessions, vi. 2.352 [ BOOK VIII.THE CITY OF GOD.god, cannot have belonged to this class of But demons.perhaps they who wished to excel in this art of making gods,imposed a god of this sort on a man who was a stranger to,and innocent of any connection with that art. What need wesay more? No one who is even moderately wise imaginesthat demons are to be worshipped on account of the blessedlife which is to be after death. But perhaps they will saythat all the gods are good, but that of the demons some arebad and some good, and that it is the good who are to beworshipped, in order that through them we may attain to theeternally blessed life. To the examination of this opinion wewill devote the following book.BOOK IX. ]GOOD AND BAD DEMONS. 353BOOK NINTH.ARGUMENT.HAVING IN THE PRECEDING BOOK SHOWN THAT THE WORSHIP OF DEMONS MUSTBE ABJURED, SINCE THEY IN A THOUSAND WAYS PROCLAIM THEMSELVES TOBE WICKED Spirits, auguSTINE IN THIS BOOK MEETS THOSE WHO ALLEGEA DISTINCTION AMONG DEMONS, SOME BEING EVIL, WHILE OTHERS AREGOOD; AND, HAVING EXPLODED THIS DISTINCTION, HE PROVES THAT TO NODEMON, BUT TO CHRIST ALONE, BELONGS THE OFFICE OF PROVIDING MENWITH ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS.1. The point at which the discussion has arrived, and what remains to be handled.SOME OME have advanced the opinion that there are both goodand bad gods; but some, thinking more respectfully ofthe gods, have attributed to them so much honour and praiseas to preclude the supposition of any god being wicked. Butthose who have maintained that there are wicked gods as wellas good ones have included the demons under the namegods," and sometimes, though more rarely, have called thegods demons; so that they admit that Jupiter, whom theymake the king and head of all the rest, is called a demon byHomer. ' Those, on the other hand, who maintain that thegods are all good, and far more excellent than the men whoare justly called good, are moved by the actions of the demons,which they can neither deny nor impute to the gods whosegoodness they affirm, to distinguish between gods and demons;so that, whenever they find anything offensive in the deeds orsentiments by which unseen spirits manifest their power, theybelieve this to proceed not from the gods, but from the demons.At the same time they believe that, as no god can hold directintercourse with men, these demons hold the position of mediators, ascending with prayers, and returning with gifts. Thisis the opinion of the Platonists, the ablest and most esteemedof their philosophers, with whom we therefore chose to debatethis question, -whether the worship of a number of gods is of¹ See Plutarch, on the Cessation of Oracles.VOL. I. Z354 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK IX. .any service towards obtaining blessedness in the future life.And this is the reason why, in the preceding book, we haveinquired how the demons, who take pleasure in such thingsas good and wise men loathe and execrate, in the sacrilegiousand immoral fictions which the poets have written, not of men,but of the gods themselves, and in the wicked and criminalviolence of magical arts, can be regarded as more nearly relatedand more friendly to the gods than men are, and can mediatebetween good men and the good gods; and it has been demonstrated that this is absolutely impossible.2. Whether among the demons, inferior to the gods, there are any good spiritsunder whose guardianship the human soul might reach true blessedness.This we shallIt has been theThis book, then, ought, according to the promise made inthe end of the preceding one, to contain a discussion, not ofthe difference which exists among the gods, who, according tothe Platonists, are all good, nor of the difference between godsand demons, the former of whom they separate by a wideinterval from men, while the latter are placed intermediatelybetween the gods and men, but of the difference, since theymake one, among the demons themselves.discuss so far as it bears on our theme.common and usual belief that some of the demons are bad,others good; and this opinion, whether it be that of thePlatonists or any other sect, must by no means be passed overin silence, lest some one suppose he ought to cultivate thegood demons in order that by their mediation he may beaccepted by the gods, all of whom he believes to be good, andthat he may live with them after death; whereas he wouldthus be ensnared in the toils of wicked spirits, and wouldwander far from the true God, with whom alone, and inwhom alone, the human soul, that is to say, the soul that isrational and intellectual, is blessed.3. What Apuleius attributes to the demons, to whom , though he does not deny them reason, he does not ascribe virtue.What, then, is the difference between good and evil demons?For the Platonist Apuleius, in a treatise on this whole subject,¹1 The De Deo Socratis.BOOK IX. ] DEMONS SUBJECT TO EMOTIONS. 355while he says a great deal about their aerial bodies, has nota word to say of the spiritual virtues with which, if theywere good, they must have been endowed. Not a word hashe said, then, of that which could give them happiness; butproof of their misery he has given, acknowledging that theirmind, by which they rank as reasonable beings, is not onlynot imbued and fortified with virtue so as to resist all unreasonable passions, but that it is somehow agitated withtempestuous emotions, and is thus on a level with the mindof foolish men. His own words are: " It is this class ofdemons the poets refer to, when, without serious error, theyfeign that the gods hate and love individuals among men,prospering and ennobling some, and opposing and distressingothers. Therefore pity, indignation, grief, joy, every humanemotion is experienced by the demons, with the same mentaldisturbance, and the same tide of feeling and thought. Theseturmoils and tempests banish them far from the tranquillity ofthe celestial gods. " Can there be any doubt that in thesewords it is not some inferior part of their spiritual nature, butthe very mind by which the demons hold their rank as rationalbeings, which he says is tossed with passion like a stormy sea?They cannot, then, be compared even to wise men, who withundisturbed mind resist these perturbations to which theyare exposed in this life, and from which human infirmity isnever exempt, and who do not yield themselves to approveof or perpetrate anything which might deflect them fromthe path of wisdom and law of rectitude. They resemble incharacter, though not in bodily appearance, wicked and foolishmen. I might indeed say they are worse, inasmuch as theyhave grown old in iniquity, and incorrigible by punishment.Their mind, as Apuleius says, is a sea tossed with tempest,having no rallying point of truth or virtue in their soul fromwhich they can resist their turbulent and depraved emotions.4. The opinion ofthe Peripatetics and Stoics about mental emotions.Among the philosophers there are two opinions about thesemental emotions, which the Greeks call Táon, while some ofour own writers, as Cicero, call them perturbations, ¹ some1 De Fin. iii. 20; Tusc. Disp. iii. 4.356 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK IX. .affections, and some, to render the Greek word more accurately, passions. Some say that even the wise man is subjectto these perturbations, though moderated and controlled byreason, which imposes laws upon them, and so restrains themwithin necessary bounds. This is the opinion of the Platonistsand Aristotelians; for Aristotle was Plato's disciple, and thefounder of the Peripatetic school. But others, as the Stoics,are of opinion that the wise man is not subject to these perturbations. But Cicero, in his book De Finibus, shows thatthe Stoics are here at variance with the Platonists and Peripatetics rather in words than in reality; for the Stoics declineto apply the term " goods" to external and bodily advantages, 'because they reckon that the only good is virtue, the art ofliving well, and this exists only in the mind. The otherphilosophers, again, use the simple and customary phraseology,and do not scruple to call these things goods, though in comparison of virtue, which guides our life, they are little and ofsmall esteem. And thus it is obvious that, whether theseoutward things are called goods or advantages, they are heldin the same estimation by both parties, and that in thismatter the Stoics are pleasing themselves merely with a novelphraseology. It seems, then, to me that in this question,whether the wise man is subject to mental passions, or whollyfree from them, the controversy is one of words rather thanof things; for I think that, if the reality and not the meresound of the words is considered, the Stoics hold precisely thesame opinion as the Platonists and Peripatetics. For, omittingfor brevity's sake other proofs which I might adduce in support of this opinion, I will state but one which I considerconclusive. Aulus Gellius, a man of extensive erudition, andgifted with an eloquent and graceful style, relates, in his workentitled Noctes Attica, that he once made a voyage with aneminent Stoic philosopher; and he goes on to relate fully andwith gusto what I shall barely state, that when the ship wastossed and in danger from a violent storm, the philosopher1 The distinction between bona and commoda is thus given by Seneca (Ep. 87,adfin. ): "Commodum est quod plus usus est quam molestiæ; bonum sincerumdebet esse et ab omni parte innoxium. "2 Book xix. ch. 1.BOOK IX. ] STOIC THEORY OF PERTURBATIONS. 357grew pale with terror. This was noticed by those on board,who, though themselves threatened with death, were curiousto see whether a philosopher would be agitated like othermen. When the tempest had passed over, and as soon astheir security gave them freedom to resume their talk, oneof the passengers, a rich and luxurious Asiatic, begins tobanter the philosopher, and rally him because he had evenbecome pale with fear, while he himself had been unmovedby the impending destruction. But the philosopher availedhimself of the reply of Aristippus the Socratic, who, on finding himself similarly bantered by a man of the same character,answered, " You had no cause for anxiety for the soul of aprofligate debauchee, but I had reason to be alarmed for thesoul of Aristippus. " The rich man being thus disposed of,Aulus Gellius asked the philosopher, in the interests of scienceand not to annoy him, what was the reason of his fear? Andhe, willing to instruct a man so zealous in the pursuit ofknowledge, at once took from his wallet a book of Epictetusthe Stoic,¹ in which doctrines were advanced which preciselyharmonized with those of Zeno and Chrysippus, the foundersof the Stoical school. Aulus Gellius says that he read inthis book that the Stoics maintain that there are certainimpressions made on the soul by external objects which theycall phantasia, and that it is not in the power of the soul todetermine whether or when it shall be invaded by these.When these impressions are made by alarming and formidableobjects, it must needs be that they move the soul even of thewise man, so that for a little he trembles with fear, or isdepressed by sadness, these impressions anticipating the workof reason and self- control; but this does not imply that themind accepts these evil impressions, or approves or consentsto them. For this consent is, they think, in a man's power;there being this difference between the mind of the wise manand that of the fool, that the fool's mind yields to these passionsand consents to them, while that of the wise man, though itcannot help being invaded by them, yet retains with unshakenfirmness a true and steady persuasion of those things whichit ought rationally to desire or avoid. This account of what1 See Diog. Laert. ii. 71.358 [BOOK IX.THE CITY OF GOD.Aulus Gellius relates that he read in the book of Epictetusabout the sentiments and doctrines of the Stoics I have givenas well as I could, not, perhaps, with his choice language, butwith greater brevity, and, I think, with greater clearness.And if this be true, then there is no difference, or next tonone, between the opinion of the Stoics and that of the otherphilosophers regarding mental passions and perturbations, forboth parties agree in maintaining that the mind and reason ofthe wise man are not subject to these. And perhaps whatthe Stoics mean by asserting this, is that the wisdom whichcharacterizes the wise man is clouded by no error and sulliedby no taint, but, with this reservation that his wisdomremains undisturbed, he is exposed to the impressions whichthe goods and ills of this life (or, as they prefer to call them,the advantages or disadvantages) make upon them.For weneed not say that if that philosopher had thought nothing ofthose things which he thought he was forthwith to lose, lifeand bodily safety, he would not have been so terrified by hisdanger as to betray his fear by the pallor of his cheek.Nevertheless, he might suffer this mental disturbance, andyet maintain the fixed persuasion that life and bodily safety,which the violence of the tempest threatened to destroy, arenot those good things which make their possessors good, asthe possession of righteousness does. But in so far as theypersist that we must call them not goods but advantages,they quarrel about words and neglect things. For whatdifference does it make whether goods or advantages be thebetter name, while the Stoic no less than the Peripatetic isalarmed at the prospect of losing them, and while, though theyname them differently, they hold them in like esteem? Bothparties assure us that, if urged to the commission of someimmorality or crime by the threatened loss of these goods oradvantages, they would prefer to lose such things as preservebodily comfort and security rather than commit such thingsas violate righteousness. And thus the mind in which thisresolution is well grounded suffers no perturbations to prevailwith it in opposition to reason, even though they assail theweaker parts of the soul; and not only so, but it rules overthem, and, while it refuses its consent and resists them, ad-BOOK IX. ] CHRISTIAN THEORY OF THE PASSIONS. 359ministers a reign of virtue. Such a character is ascribed toÆneas by Virgil when he says," He stands immovable by tears,Nor tenderest words with pity hears. "15. That the passions which assail the souls of Christians do not seduce them to vice, but exercise their virtue.TheButWe need not at present give a careful and copious expositionof the doctrine of Scripture, the sum of Christian knowledge, regarding these passions. It subjects the mind itself to God, thatHe may rule and aid it, and the passions, again, to the mind,to moderate and bridle them, and turn them to righteous uses.In our ethics, we do not so much inquire whether a pious soulis angry, as why he is angry; not whether he is sad, but whatis the cause of his sadness; not whether he fears, but what hefears. For I am not aware that any right thinking personwould find fault with anger at a wrongdoer which seeks hisamendment, or with sadness which intends relief to thesuffering, or with fear lest one in danger be destroyed.Stoics, indeed, are accustomed to condemn compassion. "how much more honourable had it been in that Stoic we havebeen telling of, had he been disturbed by compassion prompting him to relieve a fellow- creature, than to be disturbed bythe fear of shipwreck! Far better, and more humane, andmore consonant with pious sentiments, are the words of Ciceroin praise of Cæsar, when he says, " Among your virtues noneis more admirable and agreeable than your compassion.'And what is compassion but a fellow-feeling for another'smisery, which prompts us to help him if we can? And thisemotion is obedient to reason, when compassion is shownwithout violating right, as when the poor are relieved, or thepenitent forgiven. Cicero, who knew how to use language,did not hesitate to call this a virtue, which the Stoics are notashamed to reckon among the vices, although, as the bookof that eminent Stoic, Epictetus, quoting the opinions of Zenoand Chrysippus, the founders of the school, has taught us,they admit that passions of this kind invade the soul of thewise man, whom they would have to be free from all vice.1 Virgil, Eneid, iv. 449.3 Pro. Lig. c. 12.2 Seneca, De Clem. ii. 4 and 5."13360 [BOOK IX. THE CITY OF GOD.Whence it follows that these very passions are not judged bythem to be vices, since they assail the wise man withoutforcing him to act against reason and virtue; and that, therefore,the opinion of the Peripatetics or Platonists and of the Stoicsis one and the same. But, as Cicero says, ¹ mere logomachyis the bane of these pitiful Greeks, who thirst for contentionrather than for truth. However, it may justly be asked,whether our subjection to these affections, even while wefollow virtue, is a part of the infirmity of this life? Forthe holy angels feel no anger while they punish those whomthe eternal law of God consigns to punishment, no fellowfeeling with misery while they relieve the miserable, no fearwhile they aid those who are in danger; and yet ordinarylanguage ascribes to them also these mental emotions, because,though they have none of our weakness, their acts resemblethe actions to which these emotions move us; and thus evenGod Himself is said in Scripture to be angry, and yet withoutany perturbation. For this word is used of the effect of Hisvengeance, not of the disturbing mental affection.6. Ofthe passions which, according to Apuleius, agitate the demons who aresupposed by him to mediate between gods and men.2Deferring for the present the question about the holy angels,let us examine the opinion of the Platonists, that the demonswho mediate between gods and men are agitated by passions.For if their mind, though exposed to their incursion, stillremained free and superior to them, Apuleius could not havesaid that their hearts are tossed with passions as the sea bystormy winds. Their mind, then, —that superior part of theirsoul whereby they are rational beings, and which, if it actuallyexists in them, should rule and bridle the turbulent passionsof the inferior parts of the soul, this mind of theirs, I say, is,according to the Platonist referred to, tossed with a hurricaneof passions. The mind of the demons, therefore, is subject tothe emotions of fear, anger, lust, and all similar affections.What part of them, then, is free, and endued with wisdom,so that they are pleasing to the gods, and the fit guides ofmen into purity of life, since their very highest part, being theslave of passion and subject to vice, only makes them more1 De Oratore, i. 11, 47. 2 De Dco Soc.BOOK IX. ]PARTY FEELING OF THE GODS. 361intent on deceiving and seducing, in proportion to the mentalforce and energy of desire they possess?7. That the Platonists maintain that the poets wrong the gods by representingthem as distracted bypartyfeeling, to which the demons, and not the gods,are subject.But if any one says that it is not of all the demons, butonly of the wicked, that the poets, not without truth, say thatthey violently love or hate certain men, —for it was of themApuleius said that they were driven about by strong currentsof emotion, how can we accept this interpretation, whenApuleius, in the very same connection, represents all thedemons, and not only the wicked, as intermediate betweengods and men by their aerial bodies? The fiction of the poets,according to him, consists in their making gods of demons,and giving them the names of gods, and assigning them asallies or enemies to individual men, using this poetical licence,though they profess that the gods are very different in character from the demons, and far exalted above them by theircelestial abode and wealth of beatitude. This, I say, is thepoets' fiction, to say that these are gods who are not gods, andthat, under the names of gods, they fight among themselvesabout the men whom they love or hate with keen partisanfeeling. Apuleius says that this is not far from the truth,since, though they are wrongfully called by the names of thegods, they are described in their own proper character as demons.To this category, he says, belongs the Minerva of Homer,"who interposed in the ranks of the Greeks to restrainAchilles." For that this was Minerva he supposes to bepoetical fiction; for he thinks that Minerva is a goddess, andhe places her among the gods whom he believes to be all goodand blessed in the sublime ethereal region, remote from intercourse with men. But that there was a demon favourableto the Greeks and adverse to the Trojans, as another, whomthe same poet mentions under the name of Venus or Mars(gods exalted above earthly affairs in their heavenly habitations) , was the Trojans' ally and the foe of the Greeks, andthat these demons fought for those they loved against thosethey hated, in all this he owned that the poets stated some1 De Deo Soc.362 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK IX.thing very like the truth. For they made these statementsabout beings to whom he ascribes the same violent and tempestuous passions as disturb men, and who are thereforecapable of loves and hatreds not justly formed, but formed in aparty spirit, as the spectators in races or hunts take fanciesand prejudices. It seems to have been the great fear of thisPlatonist that the poetical fictions should be believed of thegods, and not of the demons who bore their names.8. How Apuleius defines the gods who dwell in heaven, the demons who occupythe air, and men who inhabit earth.The definition which Apuleius gives of demons, and inwhich he of course includes all demons, is that they are innature animals, in soul subject to passion, in mind reasonable,in body aerial, in duration eternal. Now in these five qualitieshe has named absolutely nothing which is proper to good menand not also to bad. For when Apuleius had spoken of thecelestials first, and had then extended his description so as toinclude an account of those who dwell far below on the earth,that, after describing the two extremes of rational being, hemight proceed to speak of the intermediate demons, he says," Men, therefore, who are endowed with the faculty of reasonand speech, whose soul is immortal and their members mortal,who have weak and anxious spirits, dull and corruptiblebodies, dissimilar characters, similar ignorance, who are obstinate in their audacity, and persistent in their hope, whoselabour is vain, and whose fortune is ever on the wane, theirrace immortal, themselves perishing, each generation replenishedwith creatures whose life is swift and their wisdom slow, theirdeath sudden and their life a wail, these are the men whodwell on the earth." 1 In recounting so many qualities whichbelong to the large proportion of men, did he forget that whichis the property of the few when he speaks of their wisdombeing slow? If this had been omitted, this his descriptionof the human race, so carefully elaborated, would have beendefective. And when he commended the excellence of thegods, he affirmed that they excelled in that very blessednessto which he thinks men must attain by wisdom. And therefore, if he had wished us to believe that some of the demons1 De Deo Soc.BOOK IX. ] ARE THE DEMONS MEDIATORS? 363are good, he should have inserted in his description somethingby which we might see that they have, in common with thegods, some share of blessedness, or, in common with men, somewisdom. But, as it is, he has mentioned no good quality bywhich the good may be distinguished from the bad. Foralthough he refrained from giving a full account of theirwickedness, through fear of offending, not themselves but theirworshippers, for whom he was writing, yet he sufficiently indicated to discerning readers what opinion he had of them; foronly in the one article of the eternity of their bodies does heassimilate them to the gods, all of whom, he asserts, are goodand blessed, and absolutely free from what he himself calls thestormy passions of the demons; and as to the soul, he quiteplainly affirms that they resemble men and not the gods, andthat this resemblance lies not in the possession of wisdom, whicheven men can attain to, but in the perturbation of passionswhich sway the foolish and wicked, but is so ruled by the goodand wise that they prefer not to admit rather than to conquerit. For if he had wished it to be understood that the demonsresembled the gods in the eternity not of their bodies but oftheir souls, he would certainly have admitted men to share inthis privilege, because, as a Platonist, he of course must holdthat the human soul is eternal. Accordingly, when describingthis race of living beings, he said that their souls were immortal, their members mortal. And, consequently, if menhave not eternity in common with the gods because they havemortal bodies, demons have eternity in common with the godsbecause their bodies are immortal.9. Whether the intercession ofthe demons can secure for men thefriendshipofthe celestial gods.How, then, can men hope for a favourable introduction tothe friendship of the gods by such mediators as these, whoare, like men, defective in that which is the better part ofevery living creature, viz. the soul, and who resemble the godsonly in the body, which is the inferior part? For a livingcreature or animal consists of soul and body, and of these twoparts the soul is undoubtedly the better; even though viciousand weak, it is obviously better than even the soundest andstrongest body, for the greater excellence of its nature is not.364 [BOOK IX. THE CITY OF GOD.reduced to the level of the body even by the pollution of vice,as gold, even when tarnished, is more precious than the purestsilver or lead. And yet these mediators, by whose interposition things human and divine are to be harmonized, have aneternal body in common with the gods, and a vicious soul incommon with men, as if the religion by which these demonsare to unite gods and men were a bodily, and not a spiritualmatter. What wickedness, then, or punishment has suspendedthese false and deceitful mediators, as it were head downwards,so that their inferior part, their body, is linked to the godsabove, and their superior part, the soul, bound to men beneath;united to the celestial gods by the part that serves, and miserable, together with the inhabitants of earth, by the part thatrules? For the body is the servant, as Sallust says: "Weuse the soul to rule, the body to obey;" ¹ adding, " the one wehave in common with the gods, the other with the brutes."For he was here speaking of men; and they have, like thebrutes, a mortal body. These demons, whom our philosophicfriends have provided for us as mediators with the gods, mayindeed say of the soul and body, the one we have in common with the gods, the other with men; but, as I said, theyare as it were suspended and bound head downwards, havingthe slave, the body, in common with the gods, the master,the soul, in common with miserable men, —their inferior partexalted, their superior part depressed. And therefore, if anyone supposes that, because they are not subject, like terrestrialanimals, to the separation of soul and body by death, theytherefore resemble the gods in their eternity, their body mustnot be considered a chariot of an eternal triumph, but ratherthe chain of an eternal punishment.10. That, according to Plotinus, men, whose body is mortal, are less wretchedthan demons, whose body is eternal.Plotinus, whose memory is quite recent,2 enjoys the reputation of having understood Plato better than any other of hisdisciples. In speaking of human souls, he says, " The Fatherin compassion made their bonds mortal; " 3 that is to say, he1 Cat. Conj. i.2 Plotinus died in 270 A.D. For his relation to Plato, see Augustine's Contra Acad. iii. 41. 3 Ennead. iv. 3. 12.BOOK IX. ] PLATONIC THEORY OF DEMONS. 365considered it due to the Father's mercy that men, having amortal body, should not be for ever confined in the misery ofthis life. But of this mercy the demons have been judgedunworthy, and they have received, in conjunction with a soulsubject to passions, a body not mortal like man's, but eternal.For they should have been happier than men if they had, likemen, had a mortal body, and, like the gods, a blessed soul.And they should have been equal to men, if in conjunctionwith a miserable soul they had at least received, like men, amortal body, so that death might have freed them fromtrouble, if, at least, they should have attained some degree.of piety. But, as it is, they are not only no happier than men,having, like them, a miserable soul, they are also more wretched,being eternally bound to the body; for he does not leave usto infer that by some progress in wisdom and piety they canbecome gods, but expressly says that they are demons for ever.11. Ofthe opinion ofthe Platonists, that the souls ofmen become demons when disembodied.He¹ says, indeed, that the souls of men are demons, andthat men become Lares if they are good, Lemures or Larvæ ifthey are bad, and Manes if it is uncertain whether they deserve well or ill. Who does not see at a glance that this isa mere whirlpool sucking men to moral destruction? For,however wicked men have been, if they suppose they shallbecome Larvæ or divine Manes, they will become the worsethe more love they have for inflicting injury; for, as the Larvæare hurtful demons made out of wicked men, these men mustsuppose that after death they will be invoked with sacrificesand divine honours that they may inflict injuries. But thisquestion we must not pursue. He also states that theblessed are called in Greek evdaíμoves, because they are goodsouls, that is to say, good demons, confirming his opinion thatthe souls of men are demons.12. Ofthe three opposite qualities by which the Platonists distinguish betweenthe nature ofmen and that of demons.But at present we are speaking of those beings whom hedescribed as being properly intermediate between gods andmen, in nature animals, in mind rational, in soul subject to1 Apuleius, not Plotinus.366 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK IX.passion, in body aerial, in duration eternal. When he haddistinguished the gods, whom he placed in the highest heaven,from men, whom he placed on earth, not only by position butalso by the unequal dignity of their natures, he concluded inthese words: " You have here two kinds of animals: thegods, widely distinguished from men by sublimity of abode,perpetuity of life, perfection of nature; for their habitationsare separated by so wide an interval that there can be nointimate communication between them, and while the vitalityof the one is eternal and indefeasible, that of the others isfading and precarious, and while the spirits of the gods areexalted in bliss, those of men are sunk in miseries. " ¹ HereI find three opposite qualities ascribed to the extremes ofbeing, the highest and lowest. For, after mentioning the threequalities for which we are to admire the gods, he repeated,though in other words, the same three as a foil to the defects ofman. The three qualities are, " sublimity of abode, perpetuityof life, perfection of nature." These he again mentioned soas to bring out their contrasts in man's condition. As he hadmentioned " sublimity of abode," he says, " Their habitationsare separated by so wide an interval; " as he had mentioned " perpetuity of life," he says, that " while divine life iseternal and indefeasible, human life is fading and precarious; "and as he had mentioned " perfection of nature," he says, that" while the spirits of the gods are exalted in bliss, those ofmen are sunk in miseries." These three things, then, he predicates of the gods, exaltation, eternity, blessedness; and ofman he predicates the opposite, lowliness of habitation, mortality, misery.13. How the demons can mediate between gods and men if they have nothingin common with both, being neither blessed like the gods, nor miserable like men.If, now, we endeavour to find between these opposites themean occupied by the demons, there can be no question as totheir local position; for, between the highest and lowest place,there is a place which is rightly considered and called themiddle place. The other two qualities remain, and to themwe must give greater care, that we may see whether they are1 De Deo Socratis.BOOK IX. ] DEMONS NOT MEDIATORS. 367Foraltogether foreign to the demons, or how they are so bestowedupon them without infringing upon their mediate position.We may dismiss the idea that they are foreign to them.we cannot say that the demons, being rational animals, areneither blessed nor wretched, as we say of the beasts andplants, which are void of feeling and reason, or as we say ofthe middle place, that it is neither the highest nor the lowest.The demons, being rational, must be either miserable or blessed.And, in like manner, we cannot say that they are neithermortal nor immortal; for all living things either live eternally or end life in death. Our author, besides, stated thatthe demons are eternal. What remains for us to suppose,then, but that these mediate beings are assimilated to the godsin one of the two remaining qualities, and to men in the other?For if they received both from above, or both from beneath,they should no longer be mediate, but either rise to the godsabove, or sink to men beneath. Therefore, as it has beendemonstrated that they must possess these two qualities, theywill hold their middle place if they receive one from eachparty. Consequently, as they cannot receive their eternityfrom beneath, because it is not there to receive, they must getit from above; and accordingly they have no choice but tocomplete their mediate position by accepting misery from men.According to the Platonists, then, the gods, who occupy thehighest place, enjoy eternal blessedness, or blessed eternity;men, who occupy the lowest, a mortal misery, or a miserablemortality; and the demons, who occupy the mean, a miserableeternity, or an eternal misery. As to those five things whichApuleius included in his definition of demons, he did notshow, as he promised, that the demons are mediate. For threeof them, that their nature is animal, their mind rational, theirsoul subject to passions, he said that they have in commonwith men; one thing, their eternity, in common with the gods;and one proper to themselves, their aerial body. How, then,are they intermediate, when they have three things in commonwith the lowest, and only one in common with the highest?Who does not see that the intermediate position is abandonedin proportion as they tend to, and are depressed towards, thelowest extreme? But perhaps we are to accept them as368 [BOOK IX. THE CITY OF GOD.intermediate because of their one property of an aerialbody, as the two extremes have each their proper body,the gods an ethereal, men a terrestrial body, and becausetwo of the qualities they possess in common with man theypossess also in common with the gods, namely, their animalnature and rational mind. For Apuleius himself, in speakingof gods and men, said, " You have two animal natures.” AndPlatonists are wont to ascribe a rational mind to the gods.Two qualities remain, their liability to passion, and theireternity, the first of which they have in common with men,the second with the gods; so that they are neither wafted tothe highest nor depressed to the lowest extreme, but perfectlypoised in their intermediate position. But then, this is thevery circumstance which constitutes the eternal misery, ormiserable eternity, of the demons. For he who says thattheir soul is subject to passions would also have said thatthey are miserable, had he not blushed for their worshippers.Moreover, as the world is governed, not by fortuitous haphazard, but, as the Platonists themselves avow, by the providence of the supreme God, the misery of the demons wouldnot be eternal unless their wickedness were great.If, then, the blessed are rightly styled cudemons, the demonsintermediate between gods and men are not eudemons. What,then, is the local position of those good demons, who, abovemen but beneath the gods, afford assistance to the former,minister to the latter? For if they are good and eternal,they are doubtless blessed. But eternal blessedness destroystheir intermediate character, giving them a close resemblanceto the gods, and widely separating them from men. Andtherefore the Platonists will in vain strive to show how thegood demons, if they are both immortal and blessed, can justlybe said to hold a middle place between the gods, who areimmortal and blessed, and men, who are mortal and miserable.For if they have both immortality and blessedness in commonwith the gods, and neither of these in common with men, whoare both miserable and mortal, are they not rather remotefrom men and united with the gods, than intermediate betweenthem? They would be intermediate if they held one of theirqualities in common with the one party, and the other withBOOK IX. ] CHRIST JESUS THE TRUE MEDIATOR. 369the other, as man is a kind of mean between angels andbeasts, the beast being an irrational and mortal animal, theangel a rational and immortal one, while man, inferior to theangel and superior to the beast, and having in common withthe one mortality, and with the other reason, is a rational andmortal animal. So, when we seek for an intermediate betweenthe blessed immortals and miserable mortals, we should finda being which is either mortal and blessed, or immortal andmiserable.14. Whether men, though mortal, can enjoy true blessedness.It is a great question among men, whether man can bemortal and blessed. Some, taking the humbler view of hiscondition, have denied that he is capable of blessedness solong as he continues in this mortal life; others, again, havespurned this idea, and have been bold enough to maintainthat, even though mortal, men may be blessed by attainingwisdom. But if this be the case, why are not these wise menconstituted mediators between miserable mortals and theblessed immortals, since they have blessedness in commonwith the latter, and mortality in common with the former?Certainly, if they are blessed, they envy no one (for whatmore miserable than envy?), but seek with all their mightto help miserable mortals on to blessedness, so that afterdeath they may become immortal, and be associated with theblessed and immortal angels.15. Ofthe man Christ Jesus, the Mediator between God and men.But if, as is much more probable and credible, it mustneeds be that all men, so long as they are mortal, are alsomiserable, we must seek an intermediate who is not only man,but also God, that, by the interposition of His blessed mortality, He may bring men out of their mortal misery to ablessed immortality. In this intermediate two things arerequisite, that He become mortal, and that He do not continuemortal He did become mortal, not rendering the divinityof the Word infirm, but assuming the infirmity of flesh.Neither did He continue mortal in the flesh, but raised it fromthe dead; for it is the very fruit of His mediation that those,for the sake of whose redemption He became the Mediator,VOL. L 2 A370 THE [BOOK IX.CITY OF GOD.should not abide eternally in bodily death. Wherefore itbecame the Mediator between us and God to have both atransient mortality and a permanent blessedness, that by thatwhich is transient He might be assimilated to mortals, andmight translate them from mortality to that which is permanent. Good angels, therefore, cannot mediate betweenmiserable mortals and blessed immortals, for they themselvesalso are both blessed and immortal; but evil angels can mediate,because they are immortal like the one party, miserable likethe other. To these is opposed the good Mediator, who, inopposition to their immortality and misery, has chosen to bemortal for a time, and has been able to continue blessed ineternity. It is thus He has destroyed, by the humility ofHis death and the benignity of His blessedness, those proudimmortals and hurtful wretches, and has prevented them fromseducing to misery by their boast of immortality those menwhose hearts He has cleansed by faith, and whom He hasthus freed from their impure dominion.Man, then, mortal and miserable, and far removed from theimmortal and the blessed, what medium shall he choose bywhich he may be united to immortality and blessedness?The immortality of the demons, which might have somecharm for man, is miserable; the mortality of Christ, whichmight offend man, exists no longer. In the one there isthe fear of an eternal misery; in the other, death, whichcould not be eternal, can no longer be feared, and blessedness,which is eternal, must be loved. For the immortal andmiserable mediator interposes himself to prevent us frompassing to a blessed immortality, because that which hinderssuch a passage, namely, misery, continues in him; but themortal and blessed Mediator interposed Himself, in order that,having passed through mortality, He might of mortals makeimmortals (showing His power to do this in His own resurrection), and from being miserable to raise them to the blessedcompany from the number of whom He had Himself never departed. There is, then, a wicked mediator, who separates friends,and a good Mediator, who reconciles enemies. And those whoseparate are numerous, because the multitude of the blessed areblessed only by their participation in the one God; of whichBOOK IX . ] INTERCOURSE OF GODS AND MEN. 371participation the evil angels being deprived, they are wretched,and interpose to hinder rather than to help to this blessedness,and by their very number prevent us from reaching that onebeatific good, to obtain which we need not many but oneMediator, the uncreated Word of God, by whom all thingswere made, and in partaking of whom we are blessed. I donot say that He is Mediator because He is the Word, for asthe Word He is supremely blessed and supremely immortal,and therefore far from miserable mortals; but He is Mediatoras He is man, for by His humanity He shows us that, inorder to obtain that blessed and beatific good, we need notseek other mediators to lead us through the successive stepsof this attainment, but that the blessed and beatific God,having Himself become a partaker of our humanity, hasafforded us ready access to the participation of His divinity.For in delivering us from our mortality and misery, He doesnot lead us to the immortal and blessed angels, so that weshould become immortal and blessed by participating in theirnature, but He leads us straight to that Trinity, by participating in which the angels themselves are blessed. Therefore,when He chose to be in the form of a servant, and lower thanthe angels, that He might be our Mediator, He remainedhigher than the angels, in the form of God,-Himself at oncethe way of life on earth and life itself in heaven.16. Whether it is reasonable in the Platonists to determine that the celestial godsdecline contact with earthly things and intercourse with men, who therefore require the intercession of the demons.That opinion, which the same Platonist avers that Platouttered, is not true, " that no god holds intercourse with men."¹And this, he says, is the chief evidence of their exaltation, thatthey are never contaminated by contact with men. He admits,therefore, that the demons are contaminated; and it followsthat they cannot cleanse those by whom they are themselvescontaminated, and thus all alike become impure, the demonsby associating with men, and men by worshipping the demons.Or, if they say that the demons are not contaminated byassociating and dealing with men, then they are better than thegods, for the gods, were they to do so, would be contaminated.¹ Apuleius, ibid.372 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK IX.For this, we are told, is the glory of the gods, that they are sohighly exalted that no human intercourse can sully them.He affirms, indeed, that the supreme God, the Creator of allthings, whom we call the true God, is spoken of by Plato asthe only God whom the poverty of human speech fails evenpassably to describe; and that even the wise, when theirmental energy is as far as possible delivered from the trammels of connection with the body, have only such gleams ofinsight into His nature as may be compared to a flash oflightning illumining the darkness. If, then, this supremeGod, who is truly exalted above all things, does neverthelessvisit the minds of the wise, when emancipated from the body,with an intelligible and ineffable presence, though this beonly occasional, and as it were a swift flash of light athwartthe darkness, why are the other gods so sublimely removedfrom all contact with men, as if they would be polluted by it?as if it were not a sufficient refutation of this to lift up oureyes to those heavenly bodies which give the earth its needfullight. If the stars, though they, by his account, are visiblegods, are not contaminated when we look at them, neither arethe demons contaminated when men see them quite closely.But perhaps it is the human voice, and not the eye, whichpollutes the gods; and therefore the demons are appointed tomediate and carry men's utterances to the gods, who keepthemselves remote through fear of pollution? What am I tosay of the other senses? For by smell neither the demons,who are present, nor the gods, though they were present andinhaling the exhalations of living men, would be polluted if theyare not contaminated with the effluvia of the carcases offeredin sacrifice. As for taste, they are pressed by no necessity ofrepairing bodily decay, so as to be reduced to ask food from men.And touch is in their own power. For while it may seem thatcontact is so called, because the sense of touch is speciallyconcerned in it, yet the gods, if so minded, might mingle withmen, so as to see and be seen, hear and be heard; and whereis the need of touching? For men would not dare to desirethis, if they were favoured with the sight or conversation ofgods or good demons; and if through excessive curiosity theyshould desire it, how could they accomplish their wish with-BOOK IX. ] CONTAMINATION OF THIS INFLUENCE. 373out the consent of the god or demon, when they cannot touchso much as a sparrow unless it be caged?There is, then, nothing to hinder the gods from mingling ina bodily form with men, from seeing and being seen, fromspeaking and hearing. And if the demons do thus mix withmen, as I said, and are not polluted, while the gods, were theyto do so, should be polluted, then the demons are less liable topollution than the gods. And if even the demons are contaminated, how can they help men to attain blessedness afterdeath, if, so far from being able to cleanse them, and presentthem clean to the unpolluted gods, these mediators are themselves polluted? And if they cannot confer this benefit onmen, what good can their friendly mediation do? Or shallits result be, not that men find entrance to the gods, but thatmen and demons abide together in a state of pollution, andconsequently of exclusion from blessedness? Unless, perhaps,some one may say that, like sponges or things of that sort, thedemons themselves, in the process of cleansing their friends,become themselves the filthier in proportion as the othersbecome clean. But if this is the solution, then the gods, whoshun contact or intercourse with men for fear of pollution, mixwith demons who are far more polluted. Or perhaps thegods, who cannot cleanse men without polluting themselves,can without pollution cleanse the demons who have been contaminated by human contact? Who can believe such follies,unless the demons have practised their deceit upon him? Ifseeing and being seen is contamination, and if the gods, whomApuleius himself calls visible, " the brilliant lights of theworld," and the other stars, are seen by men, are we to believethat the demons, who cannot be seen unless they please, aresafer from contamination? Or if it is only the seeing and notthe being seen which contaminates, then they must deny thatthese gods of theirs, these brilliant lights of the world, seemen when their rays beam upon the earth.Their rays are1not contaminated by lighting on all manner of pollution, andare we to suppose that the gods would be contaminated ifthey mixed with men, and even if contact were needed inorder to assist them? For there is contact between the earth1 Virgil, Georg. i. 5.374 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK IX.and the sun's or moon's rays, and yet this does not pollutethe light.17. That to obtain the blessed life, which consists in partaking of the supremegood, man needs such mediation as is furnished not by a demon, but by Christ alone.I am considerably surprised that such learned men, menwho pronounce all material and sensible things to be altogether inferior to those that are spiritual and intelligible,should mention bodily contact in connection with the blessedlife. Is that sentiment of Plotinus forgotten? "We must flyto our beloved fatherland. There is the Father, there our all.What fleet or flight shall convey us thither? Our way is, tobecome like God." If, then, one is nearer to God the likerhe is to Him, there is no other distance from God than unlikeness to Him. And the soul of man is unlike that incorporeal and unchangeable and eternal essence, in proportion asit craves things temporal and mutable. And as the thingsbeneath, which are mortal and impure, cannot hold intercoursewith the immortal purity which is above, a mediator is indeedneeded to remove this difficulty; but not a mediator who resembles the highest order of being by possessing an immortalbody, and the lowest by having a diseased soul, which makeshim rather grudge that we be healed than help our cure. Weneed a Mediator who, being united to us here below by the mortality of His body, should at the same time be able to afford ustruly divine help in cleansing and liberating us by means ofthe immortal righteousness of His spirit, whereby He remainedheavenly even while here upon earth. Far be it from theincontaminable God to fear pollution from the man" He assumed, or from the men among whom He lived in the formof a man. For, though His incarnation showed us nothingelse, these two wholesome facts were enough, that truedivinity cannot be polluted by flesh, and that demons are notto be considered better than ourselves because they have notflesh.³ This, then, as Scripture says, is the " Mediator betweenGod and man, the man Christ Jesus," of whose divinity,4¹ Augustine apparently quotes from memory from two passages of the En- neades, I. vi. 8, and ii. 3.2 Or, humanity. 3 Comp. De Trin. 13. 22. 41 Tim. ii. 5.BOOK IX. ] MEANING OF THE WORD DEMON. 375whereby He is equal to the Father, and humanity, wherebyHe has become like us, this is not the place to speak as fullyas I could.18. That the deceitful demons, while promising to conduct men to God by theirintercession, mean to turn them from the path oftruth.As to the demons, these false and deceitful mediators, who,though their uncleanness of spirit frequently reveals theirmisery and malignity, yet, by virtue of the levity of their aerialbodies and the nature of the places they inhabit, do contriveto turn us aside and hinder our spiritual progress; they donot help us towards God, but rather prevent us from reachingHim. Since even in the bodily way, which is erroneous andmisleading, and in which righteousness does not walk, -for wemust rise to God not by bodily ascent, but by incorporeal orspiritual conformity to Him, -in this bodily way, I say, whichthe friends of the demons arrange according to the weight ofthe various elements, the aerial demons being set between theethereal gods and earthy men, they imagine the gods to havethis privilege, that by this local interval they are preservedfrom the pollution of human contact. Thus they believe thatthe demons are contaminated by men rather than men cleansedby the demons, and that the gods themselves should be polluted unless their local superiority preserved them. Who isso wretched a creature as to expect purification by a way inwhich men are contaminating, demons contaminated, and godscontaminable? Who would not rather choose that way wherebywe escape the contamination of the demons, and are cleansedfrom pollution by the incontaminable God, so as to be associated with the uncontaminated angels?19. That even among their own worshippers the name " demon " has never agood signification.But as some of these demonolators, as I may call them,and among them Labeo, allege that those whom they calldemons are by others called angels, I must, if I would notseem to dispute merely about words, say something about thegood angels. The Platonists do not deny their existence, butprefer to call them good demons. But we, following Scripture,according to which we are Christians, have learned that someof the angels are good, some bad, but never have we read in376 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK IX.Scripture of good demons; but wherever this or any cognateterm occurs, it is applied only to wicked spirits. And thisusage has become so universal, that, even among those whoare called pagans, and who maintain that demons as well asgods should be worshipped, there is scarcely a man, no matterhow well read and learned, who would dare to say by way ofpraise to his slave, You have a demon, or who could doubtthat the man to whom he said this would consider it a curse?Why, then, are we to subject ourselves to the necessity ofexplaining away what we have said when we have givenoffence by using the word demon, with which every one, oralmost every one, connects a bad meaning, while we can soeasily evade this necessity by using the word angel?20. Ofthe kind ofknowledge which puffs up the demons.However, the very origin of the name suggests somethingworthy of consideration, if we compare it with the divinebooks. They are called demons from a Greek word meaningknowledge.¹ Now the apostle, speaking with the Holy Spirit,says, "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity buildeth up.""And this can only be understood as meaning that withoutcharity knowledge does no good, but inflates a man or magnifies him with an empty windiness. The demons, then, haveknowledge without charity, and are thereby so inflated orproud, that they crave those divine honours and religious services which they know to be due to the true God, and still,as far as they can, exact these from all over whom they haveinfluence. Against this pride of the demons, under which thehuman race was held subject as its merited punishment, therewas exerted the mighty influence of the humility of God, whoappeared in the form of a servant; but men, resembling thedemons in pride, but not in knowledge, and being puffed upwith uncleanness, failed to recognise Him.21. To what extent the Lord was pleased to make Himselfknown to the demons.The devils themselves knew this manifestation of God sowell, that they said to the Lord, though clothed with the1 daipar = dańμar, knowing; so Plato, Cratylus, 398. B.21 Cor. viii . 1.BOOK IX. HOW FAR CHRIST WAS KNOWN BY DEMONS. 377infirmity of flesh, " What have we to do with Thee, Jesus ofNazareth? Art Thou come to destroy us before the time?"¹From these words, it is clear that they had great knowledge,and no charity. They feared His power to punish, and did notlove His righteousness. He made known to them so muchas He pleased, and He was pleased to make known so muchas was needful. But He made Himself known, not as to theholy angels, who know Him as the Word of God, and rejoicein His eternity, which they partake, but as was requisite tostrike with terror the beings from whose tyranny He was goingto free those who were predestined to His kingdom and theglory of it, eternally true and truly eternal. He made Himself known, therefore, to the demons, not by that which is lifeeternal, and the unchangeable light which illumines the pious,whose souls are cleansed by the faith that is in Him, but bysome temporal effects of His power, and evidences of Hismysterious presence, which were more easily discerned by theangelic senses even of wicked spirits than by human infirmity.But when He judged it advisable gradually to suppress thesesigns, and to retire into deeper obscurity, the prince of thedemons doubted whether He were the Christ, and endeavouredto ascertain this by tempting Him, in so far as He permittedHimself to be tempted, that He might adapt the manhood Hewore to be an example for our imitation. But after thattemptation, when, as Scripture says, He was ministered to bythe angels who are good and holy, and therefore objects ofterror to the impure spirits, He revealed more and more distinctly to the demons how great He was, so that, even thoughthe infirmity of His flesh might seem contemptible, none daredto resist His authority.22. The difference between the knowledge of the holy angels and that ofthe demons.The good angels, therefore, hold cheap all that knowledgeof material and transitory things which the demons are soproud of possessing, —not that they are ignorant of these things,but because the love of God, whereby they are sanctified, isvery dear to them, and because, in comparison of that notmerely immaterial but also unchangeable and ineffable beauty,1 Mark i. 24. 2 Matt. iv. 3-11.378 [BOOK IX. THE CITY OF GOD.with the holy love of which they are inflamed, they despiseall things which are beneath it, and all that is not it, that theymay with every good thing that is in them enjoy that goodwhich is the source of their goodness. And therefore theyhave a more certain knowledge even of those temporal andmutable things, because they contemplate their principles andcauses in the word of God, by which the world was made,-those causes by which one thing is approved, another rejected,and all arranged. But the demons do not behold in the wisdomof God these eternal, and, as it were, cardinal causes of thingstemporal, but only foresee a larger part of the future thanmen do, by reason of their greater acquaintance with the signswhich are hidden from us. Sometimes, too, it is their own intentions they predict. And, finally, the demons are frequently,the angels never, deceived. For it is one thing, by the aidof things temporal and changeable, to conjecture the changesthat may occur in time, and to modify such things by one'sown will and faculty, and this is to a certain extent permitted to the demons, -it is another thing to foresee thechanges of times in the eternal and immutable laws of God,which live in His wisdom, and to know the will of God, themost infallible and powerful of all causes, by participating inHis spirit; and this is granted to the holy angels by a justdiscretion. And thus they are not only eternal, but blessed.And the good wherein they are blessed is God, by whom theywere created. For without end they enjoy the contemplationand participation of Him.23. That the name ofgods is falsely given to the gods ofthe Gentiles, thoughScripture applies it both to the holy angels and just men.If the Platonists prefer to call these angels gods rather thandemons, and to reckon them with those whom Plato, theirfounder and master, maintains were created by the supremeGod, they are welcome to do so, for I will not spend strengthin fighting about words. For if they say that these beingsare immortal, and yet created by the supreme God, blessedbut by cleaving to their Creator and not by their own power,they say what we say, whatever name they call these beingsby. And that this is the opinion either of all or the best of1 Timæus.BOOK IX. ] PROPER APPLICATION OF TERM "6 GODS." 379the Platonists can be ascertained by their writings. And regarding the name itself, if they see fit to call such blessed andimmortal creatures gods, this need not give rise to any seriousdiscussion between us, since in our own Scriptures we read," The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken; "¹ and again, “ Confess to the God of gods; "" and again, " He is a great Kingabove all gods. " 3 And where it is said, " He is to be fearedabove all gods," the reason is forthwith added, for it follows," for all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord madethe heavens." He said, " above all gods," but added, " of thenations; " that is to say, above all those whom the nationscount gods, in other words, demons. By them He is to befeared with that terror in which they cried to the Lord, " HastThou come to destroy us?" But where it is said, " the God ofgods," it cannot be understood as the god of the demons; andfar be it from us to say that " great King above all godsmeans " great King above all demons." But the same Scripturealso calls men who belong to God's people "gods: " " I have said,Ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High." Accordingly, when God is styled God of gods, this may be understood of these gods; and so, too, when He is styled a greatKing above all gods.""Nevertheless, some one may say, if men are called godsbecause they belong to God's people, whom He addresses bymeans of men and angels, are not the immortals, who alreadyenjoy that felicity which men seek to attain by worshippingGod, much more worthy of the title? And what shall wereply to this, if not that it is not without reason that in holyScripture men are more expressly styled gods than those immortal and blessed spirits to whom we hope to be equal inthe resurrection, because there was a fear that the weaknessof unbelief, being overcome with the excellence of these beings,might presume to constitute some of them a god? In thecase of men this was a result that need not be guarded against.Besides, it was right that the men belonging to God's peopleshould be more expressly called gods, to assure and certifythem that He who is called God of gods is their God; be1 Ps. 1. 1.Ps. xcv. 3.Ps. xcvi. 5, 6.2 Ps. cxxxvi. 2.Ps. lxxxii. 6.380 THE [BOOK IX.CITY OF GOD.cause, although those immortal and blessed spirits who dwellin the heavens are called gods, yet they are not called gods ofgods, that is to say, gods of the men who constitute God'speople, and to whom it is said, " I have said, Ye are gods, andall of you the children of the Most High." Hence the sayingof the apostle, " Though there be that are called gods, whetherin heaven or in earth, as there be gods many and lords many,but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are allthings, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whomare all things, and we by Him."" 1We need not, therefore, laboriously contend about the name,since the reality is so obvious as to admit of no shadow ofdoubt. That which we say, that the angels who are sent toannounce the will of God to men belong to the order of blessedimmortals, does not satisfy the Platonists, because they believethat this ministry is discharged, not by those whom they callgods, in other words, not by blessed immortals, but by demons,whom they dare not affirm to be blessed, but only immortal,or if they do rank them among the blessed immortals, yet onlyas good demons, and not as gods who dwell in the heaven ofheavens remote from all human contact. But, though it mayseem mere wrangling about a name, yet the name of demonis so detestable that we cannot bear in any sense to apply itto the holy angels. Now, therefore, let us close this book inthe assurance that, whatever we call these immortal andblessed spirits, who yet are only creatures, they do not act asmediators to introduce to everlasting felicity miserable mortals,from whom they are severed by a twofold distinction. Andthose others who are mediators, in so far as they have immortality in common with their superiors, and misery incommon with their inferiors (for they are justly miserable inpunishment of their wickedness), cannot bestow upon us, butrather grudge that we should possess, the blessedness fromwhich they themselves are excluded. And so the friends ofthe demons have nothing considerable to allege why we shouldrather worship them as our helpers than avoid them as traitorsto our interests. As for those spirits who are good, and whoare therefore not only immortal but also blessed, and to whom11 Cor. viii. 5, 6.BOOK IX. ] CONCLUSION. 381they suppose we should give the title of gods, and offer worship and sacrifices for the sake of inheriting a future life, weshall, by God's help, endeavour in the following book to showthat these spirits, call them by what name, and ascribe to themwhat nature you will, desire that religious worship be paid toGod alone, by whom they were created, and by whose communications of Himself to them they are blessed.382 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK X. .BOOK TENTH.ARGUMENT.66IN THIS BOOK AUGUSTINE TEACHES THAT THE GOOD ANGELS WISH GOD ALONE,WHOM THEY THEMSELVES SERVE, TO RECEIVE THAT DIVINE HONOUR WHICH IS RENDERED BY SACRIFICE, AND WHICH IS CALLED LATREIA.' HE THENGOES ON TO DISPUTE AGAINST PORPHYRY ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE AND WAYOF THE SOUL'S CLEANSING AND DELIVERANCE.1. That the Platonists themselves have determined that God alone can conferhappiness either on angels or men, but that it yet remains a questionwhether those spirits whom they direct us to worship, that we may obtainhappiness, wish sacrifice to be offered to themselves, or to the one Godonly.ITT is the decided opinion of all who use their brains, thatall men desire to be happy. But who are happy, orhow they become so, these are questions about which theweakness of human understanding stirs endless and angrycontroversies, in which philosophers have wasted their strengthand expended their leisure. To adduce and discuss theirvarious opinions would be tedious, and is unnecessary. Thereader may remember what we said in the eighth book, whilemaking a selection of the philosophers with whom we mightdiscuss the question regarding the future life of happiness,whether we can reach it by paying divine honours to the onetrue God, the Creator of all gods, or by worshipping manygods, and he will not expect us to repeat here the sameargument, especially as, even if he has forgotten it, he mayrefresh his memory by reperusal. For we made selection ofthe Platonists, justly esteemed the noblest of the philosophers,because they had the wit to perceive that the human soul,immortal and rational, or intellectual, as it is, cannot be happyexcept by partaking of the light of that God by whom bothitself and the world were made; and also that the happy lifewhich all men desire cannot be reached by any who does notcleave with a pure and holy love to that one supreme good,BOOK X. ] EXPLANATION OF TERMS. 383the unchangeable God. But as even these philosophers,whether accommodating to the folly and ignorance of thepeople, or, as the apostle says, " becoming vain in their imaginations," supposed or allowed others to suppose that manygods should be worshipped, so that some of them consideredthat divine honour by worship and sacrifice should be rendered even to the demons (an error I have already exploded),we must now, by God's help, ascertain what is thought aboutour religious worship and piety by those immortal and blessedspirits, who dwell in the heavenly places among dominations,principalities, powers, whom the Platonists call gods, andsome either good demons, or, like us, angels,—that is to say,to put it more plainly, whether the angels desire us to offersacrifice and worship, and to consecrate our possessions andourselves, to them, or only to God, theirs and ours.For this is the worship which is due to the Divinity, or,to speak more accurately, to the Deity; and, to express thisworship in a single word, as there does not occur to me anyLatin term sufficiently exact, I shall avail myself, whenevernecessary, of a Greek word. Aarpeia, whenever it occurs inScripture, is rendered by the word service. But that servicewhich is due to men, and in reference to which the apostlewrites that servants must be subject to their own masters,² isusually designated by another word in Greek, whereas theservice which is paid to God alone by worship, is always, oralmost always, called λarpeía in the usage of those who wrotefrom the divine oracles. This cannot so well be called simply3cultus," for in that case it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for the same word is applied to the respectwe pay either to the memory or the living presence of men.From it, too, we derive the words agriculture, colonist, andothers. And the heathen call their gods " cœlicola," not because they worship heaven, but because they dwell in it, andas it were colonize it, —not in the sense in which we call thosecolonists who are attached to their native soil to cultivate it1 Rom. i. 21. 2* Eph. vi. 5.3 Namely, dovλsía: comp. Quæst. in Exod. 94; Quæst. in Gen. 21; ContraFaustum, 15. 9, etc.Agricolæ, coloni, incolæ.384 [BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.under the rule of the owners, but in the sense in which thegreat master of the Latin language says, " There was an ancientcity inhabited by Tyrian colonists." He called them colonists,not because they cultivated the soil, but because they inhabited the city. So, too, cities that have hived off fromlarger cities are called colonies. Consequently, while it isquite true that, using the word in a special sense, “ cult " canbe rendered to none but God, yet, as the word is applied toother things besides, the cult due to God cannot in Latin beexpressed by this word alone.The word " religion " might seem to express more definitelythe worship due to God alone, and therefore Latin translators have used this word to represent @pnoкeía; yet, as notonly the uneducated, but also the best instructed, use the wordreligion to express human ties, and relationships, and affinities,it would inevitably introduce ambiguity to use this word indiscussing the worship of God, unable as we are to say thatreligion is nothing else than the worship of God, without contradicting the common usage which applies this word to theobservance of social relationships. "Piety," again, or, as theGreeks say, evoéßeia, is commonly understood as the properdesignation of the worship of God. Yet this word also is usedof dutifulness to parents. The common people, too, use it ofworks of charity, which, I suppose, arises from the circumstance that God enjoins the performance of such works, anddeclares that He is pleased with them instead of, or in preference to sacrifices. From this usage it has also come to passthat God Himself is called pious, in which sense the Greeksnever use evσeßeiv, though evoéßeia is applied to works ofcharity by their common people also. In some passages ofScripture, therefore, they have sought to preserve the distinction by using not evoéßeia, the more general word, butBeooéßela, which literally denotes the worship of God. We,on the other hand, cannot express either of these ideas by oneword. This worship, then, which in Greek is called λarpeía,and in Latin " servitus " [ service], but the service due to Godonly; this worship, which in Greek is called Opnoκeía, and in1 Virgil, Eneid, i. 12.2 2 Chron. xxx. 9; Eccl. xi. 13; Judith vii. 20.BOOK X. ]PLOTINUS ON ENLIGHTENMENT. 385Latin " religio," but the religion by which we are bound to Godonly; this worship, which they call Oeoréßeia, but which wecannot express in one word, but call it the worship of God, -this, we say, belongs only to that God who is the true God, andwho makes His worshippers gods.¹ And therefore, whoeverthese immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven be, if they donot love us, and wish us to be blessed, then we ought not toworship them; and if they do love us and desire our happiness, they cannot wish us to be made happy by any othermeans than they themselves have enjoyed,—for how couldthey wish our blessedness to flow from one source, theirs fromanother?2. The opinion ofPlotinus the Platonist regarding enlightenment from above.But with these more estimable philosophers we have nodispute in this matter. For they perceived, and in various.forms abundantly expressed in their writings, that these spiritshave the same source of happiness as ourselves, a certainintelligible light, which is their God, and is different fromthemselves, and illumines them that they may be penetratedwith light, and enjoy perfect happiness in the participation ofGod. Plotinus, commenting on Plato, repeatedly and stronglyasserts that not even the soul which they believe to be thesoul of the world, derives its blessedness from any othersource than we do, viz. from that Light which is distinct fromit and created it, and by whose intelligible illumination itenjoys light in things intelligible. He also compares thosespiritual things to the vast and conspicuous heavenly bodies,as if God were the sun, and the soul the moon; for theysuppose that the moon derives its light from the sun. Thatgreat Platonist, therefore, says that the rational soul, or ratherthe intellectual soul, -in which class he comprehends thesouls of the blessed immortals who inhabit heaven, has nonature superior to it save God, the Creator of the world andthe soul itself, and that these heavenly spirits derive theirblessed life, and the light of truth, from the same source asourselves, agreeing with the gospel where we read, “ There wasa man sent from God whose name was John; the same camefor a witness to bear witness of that Light, that through HimVOL. I.1 Ps. lxxxii. 6.2 B386 [BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.all might believe. He was not that Light, but that he mightbear witness of the Light. That was the true Light whichlighteth every man that cometh into the world; " a distinction which sufficiently proves that the rational or intellectual soul such as John had cannot be its own light, butneeds to receive illumination from another, the true Light.This John himself avows when he delivers his witness: “ Wehave all received of His fulness."" 23. That the Platonists, though knowing something ofthe Creator ofthe universe,have misunderstood the true worship of God, by giving divine honour toangels, good or bad.This being so, if the Platonists, or those who think withthem, knowing God, glorified Him as God and gave thanks, ifthey did not become vain in their own thoughts, if they didnot originate or yield to the popular errors, they would certainly acknowledge that neither could the blessed immortalsretain, nor we miserable mortals reach, a happy conditionwithout worshipping the one God of gods, who is both theirsand ours. To Him we owe the service which is called inGreek Marρeía, whether we render it outwardly or inwardly;for we are all His temple, each of us severally and all of ustogether, because He condescends to inhabit each individuallyand the whole harmonious body, being no greater in all thanin each, since He is neither expanded nor divided. Our heartwhen it rises to Him is His altar; the priest who intercedesfor us is His Only-begotten; we sacrifice to Him bleedingvictims when we contend for His truth even unto blood; toHim we offer the sweetest incense when we come before Himburning with holy and pious love; to Him we devote andsurrender ourselves and His gifts in us; to Him, by solemnfeasts and on appointed days, we consecrate the memory ofHis benefits, lest through the lapse of time ungrateful oblivionshould steal upon us; to Him we offer on the altar of ourheart the sacrifice of humility and praise, kindled by the fireof burning love. It is that we may see Him, so far as Hecan be seen; it is that we may cleave to Him, that we arecleansed from all stain of sins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. For He is the fountain of our happi-¹ John i 2 Ibid. 16. . 6-9.BOOK X. ] THE TRUE WORSHIP OF GOD. 387ness, He the end of all our desires. Being attached to Him, orrather let me say, re-attached, -for we had detached ourselvesand lost hold of Him,-being, I say, re-attached to Him, ¹ wetend towards Him by love, that we may rest in Him, and findour blessedness by attaining that end. For our good, aboutwhich philosophers have so keenly contended, is nothing elsethan to be united to God. It is, if I may say so, by spirituallyembracing Him that the intellectual soul is filled and impregnated with true virtues. We are enjoined to love this goodwith all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength.To this good we ought to be led by those who love us, andto lead those we love. Thus are fulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets: " Thoushalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with allthy mind, and with all thy soul;" and " Thou shalt love thyneighbour as thyself." " For, that man might be intelligent inhis self-love, there was appointed for him an end to whichhe might refer all his actions, that he might be blessed. Forhe who loves himself wishes nothing else than this. And theend set before him is "to draw near to God."3 And so, whenone who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to lovehis neighbour as himself, what else is enjoined than that heshall do all in his power to commend to him the love of God?This is the worship of God, this is true religion, this rightpiety, this the service due to God only. If any immortalpower, then, no matter with what virtue endowed, loves us ashimself, he must desire that we find our happiness by submitting ourselves to Him, in submission to whom he himself findshappiness. If he does not worship God, he is wretched, because deprived of God; if he worships God, he cannot wishto be worshipped in God's stead. On the contrary, thesehigher powers acquiesce heartily in the divine sentence inwhich it is written, " He that sacrificeth unto any god, saveunto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." *4. That sacrifice is due to the true God only.But, putting aside for the present the other religious services1 Augustine here remarks, in a clause that cannot be given in English, thatthe word religio is derived from religere. -So Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 28.2 Matt. xxii. 37-40. 3 Ps. lxxiii. 28. 4 Ex. xxii. 20.388 THE [ BOOK X. CITY OF GOD.with which God is worshipped, certainly no man would dareto say that sacrifice is due to any but God. Many parts,indeed, of divine worship are unduly used in showing honourto men, whether through an excessive humility or perniciousflattery; yet, while this is done, those persons who are thusworshipped and venerated, or even adored, are reckoned nomore than human; and who ever thought of sacrificing saveto one whom he knew, supposed, or feigned to be a god?And how ancient a part of God's worship sacrifice is, thosetwo brothers, Cain and Abel, sufficiently show, of whom Godrejected the elder's sacrifice, and looked favourably on theyounger's.5. Ofthe sacrifices which God does not require, but wished to be observed for theexhibition ofthose things which He does require.ForAnd who is so foolish as to suppose that the things offeredto God are needed by Him for some uses of His own? DivineScripture in many places explodes this idea. Not to be wearisome, suffice it to quote this brief saying from a psalm: " Ihave said to the Lord, Thou art my God: for Thou needestnot my goodness." We must believe, then, that God has noneed, not only of cattle, or any other earthly and materialthing, but even of man's righteousness, and that whateverright worship is paid to God profits not Him, but man.no man would say he did a benefit to a fountain by drinking,or to the light by seeing. And the fact that the ancientchurch offered animal sacrifices, which the people of Godnow-a-days reads of without imitating, proves nothing elsethan this, that those sacrifices signified the things which wedo for the purpose of drawing near to God, and inducing ourneighbour to do the same. Asacrifice, therefore, is the visiblesacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. Hence thatpenitent in the psalm, or it may be the Psalmist himself,entreating God to be merciful to his sins, says, " If Thoudesiredst sacrifice, I would give it: Thou delightest not inwhole burnt-offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken heart:a heart contrite and humble God will not despise. " Observehow, in the very words in which he is expressing God's refusalof sacrifice, he shows that God requires sacrifice. He does¹ Ps. xvi. 2. 2 Ps. li. 16, 17."12BOOK X. ] SACRIFICES, SYMBOLICAL AND REAL. 389not desire the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but He desiresthe sacrifice of a contrite heart. Thus, that sacrifice which hesays God does not wish, is the symbol of the sacrifice whichGod does wish. God does not wish sacrifices in the sensein which foolish people think He wishes them, viz. to gratifyHis own pleasure. For if He had not wished that the sacrifices He requires, as, e.g. , a heart contrite and humbled bypenitent sorrow, should be symbolized by those sacrificeswhich He was thought to desire because pleasant to Himself,the old law would never have enjoined their presentation;and they were destined to be merged when the fit opportunityarrived, in order that men might not suppose that the sacrifices themselves, rather than the things symbolized by them,were pleasing to God or acceptable in us. Hence, in anotherpassage from another psalm, he says, " If I were hungry, Iwould not tell thee; for the world is mine and the fulnessthereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood ofgoats? " as if He should say, Supposing such things werenecessary to me, I would never ask thee for what I have inmy own hand. Then he goes on to mention what thesesignify: " Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thyvows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day oftrouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me."" Soin another prophet: " Wherewith shall I come before theLord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I comebefore Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old?Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with tenthousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for mytransgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?Hath He showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doththe Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy,and to walk humbly with thy God? "3 In the words of thisprophet, these two things are distinguished and set forth withsufficient explicitness, that God does not require these sacrifices for their own sakes, and that He does require the sacrifices which they symbolize. In the epistle entitled " To theHebrews" it is said, " To do good and to communicate, forgetnot for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." And so,1 Ps. 1. 12, 13. 2 Ps. L. 14, 15. Micah vi. 6-8. 4 Heb. xiii. 16.390 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK X.when it is written, " I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,"nothing else is meant than that one sacrifice is preferred toanother; for that which in common speech is called sacrificeis only the symbol of the true sacrifice. Now mercy is thetrue sacrifice, and therefore it is said, as I have just quoted,"with such sacrifices God is well pleased." All the divineordinances, therefore, which we read concerning the sacrificesin the service of the tabernacle or the temple, we are to referto the love of God and our neighbour. For " on these twocommandments," as it is written, " hang all the law and theprophets. "26. Ofthe true and perfect sacrifice.Thus a true sacrifice is every work which is done that wemay be united to God in holy fellowship, and which has areference to that supreme good and end in which alone wecan be truly blessed.3 And therefore even the mercy weshow to men, if it is not shown for God's sake, is not asacrifice. For, though made or offered by man, sacrifice isa divine thing, as those who called it sacrifice meant toindicate. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God,and vowed to God, is a sacrifice in so far as he dies to theworld that he may live to God. For this is a part of thatmercy which each man shows to himself; as it is written," Have mercy on thy soul by pleasing God. " 5 Our body, too,is a sacrifice when we chasten it by temperance, if we do soas we ought, for God's sake, that we may not yield our members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but instrumentsof righteousness unto God. Exhorting to this sacrifice, theapostle says, " I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercyof God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." If,then, the body, which, being inferior, the soul uses as a servantor instrument, is a sacrifice when it is used rightly, and withreference to God, how much more does the soul itself become¹ Hos. vi. 6.2 Matt. xxii. 40.3 On the service rendered to the Church by this definition, see Waterland'sWorks, v. 124.4 Literally, a sacred action.Rom. vi. 13.6 Ecclus. xxx. 24.7 Rom. xii. 1.BOOK X.] THE TRUE SACRIFICE. 391a sacrifice when it offers itself to God, in order that, beinginflamed by the fire of His love, it may receive of His beautyand become pleasing to Him, losing the shape of earthlydesire, and being remoulded in the image of permanent loveliness? And this, indeed, the apostle subjoins, saying, " And benot conformed to this world; but be ye transformed in therenewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good,and acceptable, and perfect will of God." Since, therefore,true sacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, donewith a reference to God, and since works of mercy have noother object than the relief of distress or the conferring ofhappiness, and since there is no happiness apart from thatgood of which it is said, " It is good for me to be very near toGod," it follows that the whole redeemed city, that is to say,the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to Godas our sacrifice through the great High Priest, who offeredHimself to God in His passion for us, that we might bemembers of this glorious head, according to the form of aservant. For it was this form He offered, in this He wasoffered, because it is according to it He is Mediator, in thisHe is our Priest, in this the Sacrifice. Accordingly, whenthe apostle had exhorted us to present our bodies a livingsacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service, andnot to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed in therenewing of our mind, that we might prove what is that good,and acceptable, and perfect will of God, that is to say, the truesacrifice of ourselves, he says, " For I say, through the graceof God which is given unto me, to every man that is amongyou, not to think of himself more highly than he ought tothink, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt toevery man the measure of faith. For, as we have manymembers in one body, and all members have not the sameoffice, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another, having gifts differing accordingto the grace that is given to us." 3 This is the sacrifice ofChristians: we, being many, are one body in Christ. And thisalso is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates inthe sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which1 Rom. xii. 2. 2 Ps. lxxiii. 28. 3 Rom. xii. 3-6.392 THE [BOOK X. CITY OF GOD.she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering shemakes to God.7. Ofthe love of the holy angels, which prompts them to desire that we worship the one true God, and not themselves.It is very right that these blessed and immortal spirits,who inhabit celestial dwellings, and rejoice in the communications of their Creator's fulness, firm in His eternity, assuredin His truth, holy by His grace, since they compassionatelyand tenderly regard us miserable mortals, and wish us tobecome immortal and happy, do not desire us to sacrifice tothemselves, but to Him whose sacrifice they know themselvesto be in common with us. For we and they together are theone city of God, to which it is said in the psalm, " Gloriousthings are spoken of thee, O city of God; " the human partsojourning here below, the angelic aiding from above. Forfrom that heavenly city, in which God's will is the intelligibleand unchangeable law, from that heavenly council- chamber, -for they sit in counsel regarding us, —that holy Scripture, descended to us by the ministry of angels, in which it is written," He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only,he shall be utterly destroyed," this Scripture, this law, theseprecepts, have been confirmed by such miracles, that it is sufficiently evident to whom these immortal and blessed spirits,who desire us to be like themselves, wish us to sacrifice.8. Ofthe miracles which God has condescended to adhibit, through the ministryofangels, to His promises for the confirmation ofthefaith of the godly.I should seem tedious were I to recount all the ancientmiracles, which were wrought in attestation of God's promises which He made to Abraham thousands of years ago,that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed.³For who can but marvel that Abraham's barren wife shouldhave given birth to a son at an age when not even a prolificwoman could bear children; or, again, that when Abrahamsacrificed, a flame from heaven should have run between thedivided parts; or that the angels in human form, whom hehad hospitably entertained, and who had renewed God's pro1 Ps. lxxxvii. 3. 2 Ex. xxii. 20. 3 Gen. xviii. 18.4 Gen. xv. 17. In his Retractations, ii. 43, Augustine says that he should nothave spoken of this as miraculous, because it was an appearance seen in sleep.BOOK X. ] MIRACLES. 393mise of offspring, should also have predicted the destructionof Sodom by fire from heaven; and that his nephew Lotshould have been rescued from Sodom by the angels as thefire was just descending, while his wife, who looked back asshe went, and was immediately turned into salt, stood as asacred beacon warning us that no one who is being savedshould long for what he is leaving? How striking also werethe wonders done by Moses to rescue God's people from theyoke of slavery in Egypt, when the magi of the Pharaoh, thatis, the king of Egypt, who tyrannized over this people, weresuffered to do some wonderful things that they might bevanquished all the more signally! They did these things bythe magical arts and incantations to which the evil spirits ordemons are addicted; while Moses, having as much greaterpower as he had right on his side, and having the aid ofangels, easily conquered them in the name of the Lord whomade heaven and earth. And, in fact, the magicians failedat the third plague; whereas Moses, dealing out the miraclesdelegated to him, brought ten plagues upon the land, so thatthe hard hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians yielded, andthe people were let go. But, quickly repenting, and essaying to overtake the departing Hebrews, who had crossed thesea on dry ground, they were covered and overwhelmed inthe returning waters. What shall I say of those frequentand stupendous exhibitions of divine power, while the peoplewere conducted through the wilderness?-of the waters whichcould not be drunk, but lost their bitterness, and quenchedthe thirsty, when at God's command a piece of wood was castinto them? of the manna that descended from heaven toappease their hunger, and which begat worms and putrefiedwhen any one collected more than the appointed quantity,and yet, though double was gathered on the day before theSabbath (it not being lawful to gather it on that day), remained fresh? of the birds which filled the camp, and turnedappetite into satiety when they longed for flesh, which itseemed impossible to supply to so vast a population? of theenemies who met them, and opposed their passage with arms,and were defeated without the loss of a single Hebrew, when1 Gen. xviii.394 [ BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.Moses prayed with his hands extended in the form of a cross?of the seditious persons who arose among God's people, andseparated themselves from the divinely- ordered community,and were swallowed up alive by the earth, a visible token ofan invisible punishment? of the rock struck with the rod,and pouring out waters more than enough for all the host? ofthe deadly serpents' bites, sent in just punishment of sin, buthealed by looking at the lifted brazen serpent, so that not onlywere the tormented people healed, but a symbol of the crucifixion of death set before them in this destruction of death bydeath? It was this serpent which was preserved in memoryof this event, and was afterwards worshipped by the mistakenpeople as an idol, and was destroyed by the pious and Godfearing king Hezekiah, much to his credit.9. Ofthe illicit arts connected with demonolatry, and of which the PlatonistPorphyry adopts some, and discards others.These miracles, and many others of the same nature, whichit were tedious to mention, were wrought for the purpose ofcommending the worship of the one true God, and prohibitingthe worship of a multitude of false gods. Moreover, they werewrought by simple faith and godly confidence, not by the incantations and charms composed under the influence of acriminal tampering with the unseen world, of an art whichthey call either magic, or by the more abominable title necromancy, or the more honourable designation theurgy; for theywish to discriminate between those whom the people callmagicians, who practise necromancy, and are addicted to illicitarts and condemned, and those others who seem to them tobe worthy of praise for their practice of theurgy, the truth,however, being that both classes are the slaves of the deceitful rites of the demons whom they invoke under the namesof angels.For even Porphyry promises some kind of purgation of thesoul by the help of theurgy, though he does so with somehesitation and shame, and denies that this art can secure toany one a return to God; so that you can detect his opinionvacillating between the profession of philosophy and an artwhich he feels to be presumptuous and sacrilegious. For at1 Goetia.BOOK X. ] THEURGY. 395one time he warns us to avoid it as deceitful, and prohibitedby law, and dangerous to those who practise it; then again,as if in deference to its advocates, he declares it useful forcleansing one part of the soul, not, indeed, the intellectual part,by which the truth of things intelligible, which have no sensibleimages, is recognised, but the spiritual part, which takes cognizance of the images of things material. This part, he says,is prepared and fitted for intercourse with spirits and angels,and for the vision of the gods, by the help of certain theurgicconsecrations, or, as they call them, mysteries. He acknowledges, however, that these theurgic mysteries impart to theintellectual soul no such purity as fits it to see its God, andrecognise the things that truly exist. And from this acknowledgment we may infer what kind of gods these are, and whatkind of vision of them is imparted by theurgic consecrations,if by it one cannot see the things which truly exist.He says,further, that the rational, or, as he prefers calling it, the intellectual soul, can pass into the heavens without the spiritualpart being cleansed by theurgic art, and that this art cannotso purify the spiritual part as to give it entrance to immortalityand eternity. And therefore, although he distinguishes angelsfrom demons, asserting that the habitation of the latter is inthe air, while the former dwell in the ether and empyrean,and although he advises us to cultivate the friendship of somedemon, who may be able after our death to assist us, andelevate us at least a little above the earth, for he owns thatit is by another way we must reach the heavenly society ofthe angels, he at the same time distinctly warns us to avoidthe society of demons, saying that the soul, expiating its sinafter death, execrates the worship of demons by whom it wasentangled. And of theurgy itself, though he recommends itas reconciling angels and demons, he cannot deny that it treatswith powers which either themselves envy the soul its purity,or serve the arts of those who do envy it. He complains ofthis through the mouth of some Chaldæan or other: " A goodman in Chaldæa complains," he says, " that his most strenuousefforts to cleanse his soul were frustrated, because another man,who had influence in these matters, and who envied himpurity, had prayed to the powers, and bound them by his con-396 THE [BOOK X. CITY OF GOD.juring not to listen to his request. Therefore," adds Porphyry,"what the one man bound, the other could not loose." Andfrom this he concludes that theurgy is a craft which accomplishes not only good but evil among gods and men; and thatthe gods also have passions, and are perturbed and agitatedby the emotions which Apuleius attributed to demons andmen, but from which he preserved the gods by that sublimity ofresidence, which, in common with Plato, he accorded to them.10. Concerning theurgy, which promises a delusive purification ofthe soulbythe invocation ofdemons.But here we have another and a much more learned Platonist than Apuleius, Porphyry, to wit, asserting that, by I knownot what theurgy, even the gods themselves are subjected topassions and perturbations; for by adjurations they were sobound and terrified that they could not confer purity of soul,-were so terrified by him who imposed on them a wickedcommand, that they could not by the same theurgy be freedfrom that terror, and fulfil the righteous behest of him whoprayed to them, or do the good he sought. Who does not seethat all these things are fictions of deceiving demons, unlesshe be a wretched slave of theirs, and an alien from the grace ofthe true Liberator? For if the Chaldæan had been dealingwith good gods, certainly a well-disposed man, who sought topurify his own soul, would have had more influence with themthan an evil-disposed man seeking to hinder him. Or, if thegods were just, and considered the man unworthy of thepurification he sought, at all events they should not have beenterrified by an envious person, nor hindered, as Porphyry avows,by the fear of a stronger deity, but should have simply deniedthe boon on their own free judgment. And it is surprisingthat that well-disposed Chaldæan, who desired to purify hissoul by theurgical rites, found no superior deity who couldeither terrify the frightened gods still more, and force them toconfer the boon, or compose their fears, and so enable them todo good without compulsion, even supposing that the goodtheurgist had no rites by which he himself might purge awaythe taint of fear from the gods whom he invoked for the purification of his own soul. And why is it that there is a godwho has power to terrify the inferior gods, and none who hasBOOK X. ]PORPHYRY'S LETTER TO ANEBO. 397power to free them from fear? Is there found a god who listensto the envious man, and frightens the gods from doing good?and is there not found a god who listens to the well- disposedman, and removes the fear of the gods that they may do himgood? O excellent theurgy! O admirable purification of thesoul —a theurgy in which the violence of an impure envy hasmore influence than the entreaty of purity and holiness.Rather let us abominate and avoid the deceit of such wickedspirits, and listen to sound doctrine. As to those who perform these filthy cleansings by sacrilegious rites, and see intheir initiated state (as he further tells us, though we mayquestion this vision) certain wonderfully lovely appearancesof angels or gods, this is what the apostle refers to when hespeaks of “ Satan transforming himself into an angel of light."For these are the delusive appearances of that spirit who longsto entangle wretched souls in the deceptive worship of manyand false gods, and to turn them aside from the true worshipof the true God, by whom alone they are cleansed and healed,and who, as was said of Proteus, " turns himself into allshapes," equally hurtful, whether he assaults us as an enemy,or assumes the disguise of a friend.11. OfPorphyry's epistle to Anebo, in which he asks for information aboutthe differences among demons." 1It was a better tone which Porphyry adopted in his letterto Anebo the Egyptian, in which, assuming the character ofan inquirer consulting him, he unmasks and explodes thesesacrilegious arts. In that letter, indeed, he repudiates alldemons, whom he maintains to be so foolish as to be attractedby the sacrificial vapours, and therefore residing not in theether, but in the air beneath the moon, and indeed in themoon itself. Yet he has not the boldness to attribute to allthe demons all the deceptions and malicious and foolishpractices which justly move his indignation. For, though heacknowledges that as a race demons are foolish, he so far accommodates himself to popular ideas as to call some of thembenignant demons. He expresses surprise that sacrifices notonly incline the gods, but also compel and force them to dowhat men wish; and he is at a loss to understand how the12 Cor. xi. 14. Virgil, Georg. iv. 411.2398 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK X.sun and moon, and other visible celestial bodies,-for bodies hedoes not doubt that they are, are considered gods, if the godsare distinguished from the demons by their incorporeality; also,if they are gods, how some are called beneficent and othershurtful, and how they, being corporeal, are numbered with thegods, who are incorporeal. He inquires further, and still asone in doubt, whether diviners and wonderworkers are men ofunusually powerful souls, or whether the power to do thesethings is communicated by spirits from without. He inclinesto the latter opinion, on the ground that it is by the use ofstones and herbs that they lay spells on people, and openclosed doors, and do similar wonders. And on this account,he says, some suppose that there is a race of beings whoseproperty it is to listen to men,-a race deceitful, full of contrivances, capable of assuming all forms, simulating gods,demons, and dead men, --and that it is this race which bringsabout all these things which have the appearance of good orevil, but that what is really good they never help us in, andare indeed unacquainted with, for they make wickedness easy,but throw obstacles in the path of those who eagerly followvirtue; and that thay are filled with pride and rashness,delight in sacrificial odours, are taken with flattery. These andthe other characteristics of this race of deceitful and maliciousspirits, who come into the souls of men and delude their senses,both in sleep and waking, he describes not as things of whichhe is himself convinced, but only with so much suspicion anddoubt as to cause him to speak of them as commonly receivedopinions. We should sympathize with this great philosopherin the difficulty he experienced in acquainting himself withand confidently assailing the whole fraternity of devils, whichany Christian old woman would unhesitatingly describe andmost unreservedly detest. Perhaps, however, he shrank fromoffending Anebo, to whom he was writing, himself the mosteminent patron of these mysteries, or the others who marvelledat these magical feats as divine works, and closely allied tothe worship of the gods.However, he pursues this subject, and, still in the characterof an inquirer, mentions some things which no sober judgmentcould attribute to any but malicious and deceitful powers.BOOK X. ] PORPHYRY TO ANEBO. 399He asks why, after the better class of spirits have been invoked, the worse should be commanded to perform the wickeddesires of men; why they do not hear a man who has just lefta woman's embrace, while they themselves make no scruple oftempting men to incest and adultery; why their priests arecommanded to abstain from animal food for fear of being polluted by the corporeal exhalations, while they themselves areattracted by the fumes of sacrifices and other exhalations;why the initiated are forbidden to touch a dead body, whiletheir mysteries are celebrated almost entirely by means of deadbodies; why it is that a man addicted to any vice should utterthreats, not to a demon or to the soul of a dead man, but tothe sun and moon, or some of the heavenly bodies, which heintimidates by imaginary terrors, that he may wring from thema real boon, for he threatens that he will demolish the sky,and such like impossibilities, —that those gods, being alarmed,like silly children, with imaginary and absurd threats, maydo what they are ordered. Porphyry further relates that aman Chæremon, profoundly versed in these sacred or rathersacrilegious mysteries, had written that the famous Egyptianmysteries of Isis and her husband Osiris had very great influence with the gods to compel them to do what they wereordered, when he who used the spells threatened to divulgeor do away with these mysteries, and cried with a threateningvoice that he would scatter the members of Osiris if theyneglected his orders. Not without reason is Porphyry surprised that a man should utter such wild and empty threatsagainst the gods, -not against gods of no account, but againstthe heavenly gods, and those that shine with sidereal light,-and that these threats should be effectual to constrain themwith resistless power, and alarm them so that they fulfil hiswishes. Not without reason does he, in the character of aninquirer into the reasons of these surprising things, give it tobe understood that they are done by that race of spirits whichhe previously described as if quoting other people's opinions, —spirits who deceive not, as he said, by nature, but by theirown corruption, and who simulate gods and dead men, butnot, as he said, demons, for demons they really are. As tohis idea that by means of herbs, and stones, and animals, and400 [ BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.certain incantations and noises, and drawings, sometimes fanciful, and sometimes copied from the motions of the heavenlybodies, men create upon earth powers capable of bringingabout various results, all that is only the mystification whichthese demons practise on those who are subject to them, forthe sake of furnishing themselves with merriment at the expense of their dupes. Either, then, Porphyry was sincere inhis doubts and inquiries, and mentioned these things to demonstrate and put beyond question that they were the work,not of powers which aid us in obtaining life, but of deceitfuldemons; or, to take a more favourable view of the philosopher,he adopted this method with the Egyptian who was wedded tothese errors, and was proud of them, that he might not offendhim by assuming the attitude of a teacher, nor discompose hismind by the altercation of a professed assailant, but, by assuming the character of an inquirer, and the humble attitudeof one who was anxious to learn, might turn his attentionto these matters, and show howworthy they are to be despisedand relinquished. Towards the conclusion of his letter, herequests Anebo to inform him what the Egyptian wisdom indicates as the way to blessedness. But as to those who holdintercourse with the gods, and pester them only for the sakeof finding a runaway slave, or acquiring property, or making abargain of a marriage, or such things, he declares that theirpretensions to wisdom are vain. He adds that these samegods, even granting that on other points their utterances weretrue, were yet so ill-advised and unsatisfactory in their disclosures about blessedness, that they cannot be either gods orgood demons, but are either that spirit who is called the deceiver, or mere fictions of the imagination.12. Ofthe miracles wrought by the true God through the ministry oftheholy angels.Since by means of these arts wonders are done which quitesurpass human power, what choice have we but to believe thatthese predictions and operations, which seem to be miraculousand divine, and which at the same time form no part of the worship of the one God, in adherence to whom, as the Platoniststhemselves abundantly testify, all blessedness consists, are thepastime of wicked spirits, who thus seek to seduce and hinderBOOK X. ] MAN THE GREATEST MIRACLE. 401the truly godly? On the other hand, we cannot but believethat all miracles, whether wrought by angels or by othermeans, so long as they are so done as to commend the worshipand religion of the one God in whom alone is blessedness, arewrought by those who love us in a true and godly sort, orthrough their means, God Himself working in them.For wecannot listen to those who maintain that the invisible Godworks no visible miracles; for even they believe that Hemade the world, which surely they will not deny to be visible..Whatever marvel happens in this world, it is certainly lessmarvellous than this whole world itself,-I mean the sky andearth, and all that is in them, and these God certainlymade. But, as the Creator Himself is hidden and incomprehensible to man, so also is the manner of creation.Although, therefore, the standing miracle of this visible worldis little thought of, because always before us, yet, when wearouse ourselves to contemplate it, it is a greater miracle thanthe rarest and most unheard- of marvels. For man himself isa greater miracle than any miracle done through his instrumentality. Therefore God, who made the visible heaven and earth,does not disdain to work visible miracles in heaven or earth,that He may thereby awaken the soul which is immersed inthings visible to worship Himself, the Invisible. But the placeand time of these miracles are dependent on His unchangeablewill, in which things future are ordered as if already they wereaccomplished. For He moves things temporal without Himselfmoving in time. He does not in one way know things thatare to be, and, in another, things that have been; neither doesHe listen to those who pray otherwise than as He sees thosethat will pray. For, even when His angels hear us, it is HeHimself who hears us in them, as in His true temple notmade with hands, as in those men who are His saints; andHis answers, though accomplished in time, have been arrangedby His eternal appointment.13. Ofthe invisible God, who has often made Himselfvisible, not as He really is,but as the beholders could bear the sight.Neither need we be surprised that God, invisible as He is,should often have appeared visibly to the patriarchs. Foras the sound which communicates the thought conceived inVOL. I. 2 C402 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK X.the silence of the mind is not the thought itself, so the formby which God, invisible in His own nature, became visible,was not God Himself. Nevertheless it is He Himself whowas seen under that form, as that thought itself is heard inthe sound of the voice; and the patriarchs recognised that,though the bodily form was not God, they saw the invisibleGod. For, though Moses conversed with God, yet he said,' If I have found grace in Thy sight, show me Thyself, thatI may see and know Thee.'¹ And as it was fit that the law,which was given, not to one man or a few enlightened men,but to the whole of a populous nation, should be accompaniedby awe- inspiring signs, great marvels were wrought, by theministry of angels, before the people on the mount where thelaw was being given to them through one man, while themultitude beheld the awful appearances. For the people ofIsrael believed Moses, not as the Lacedæmonians believed theirLycurgus, because he had received from Jupiter or Apollo thelaws he gave them. For when the law which enjoined theworship of one God was given to the people, marvellous signsand earthquakes, such as the divine wisdom judged sufficient,were brought about in the sight of all, that they might knowthat it was the Creator who could thus use creation to promulgate His law.14. That the one God is to be worshipped not only for the sake of eternalblessings, but also in connection with temporal prosperity, because allthings are regulated by His providence.The education of the human race, represented by the peopleof God, has advanced, like that of an individual, through certain epochs, or, as it were, ages, so that it might gradually risefrom earthly to heavenly things, and from the visible to theinvisible. This object was kept so clearly in view, that, evenin the period when temporal rewards were promised, the oneGod was presented as the object of worship, that men mightnot acknowledge any other than the true Creator and Lord ofthe spirit, even in connection with the earthly blessings ofthis transitory life. For he who denies that all things, whicheither angels or men can give us, are in the hand of the oneAlmighty, is a madman. The Platonist Plotinus discourses1 Ex. xxxiii. 13.BOOK X. ] THE MINISTRY OF ANGELS. 403concerning providence, and, from the beauty of flowers andfoliage, proves that from the supreme God, whose beauty isunseen and ineffable, providence reaches down even to theseearthly things here below; and he argues that all these frailand perishing things could not have so exquisite and elaboratea beauty, were they not fashioned by Him whose unseen andunchangeable beauty continually pervades all things.¹ Thisis proved also by the Lord Jesus, where He says, ' Considerthe lilies, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.And yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was notarrayed like one of these. But if God so clothe the grass ofthe field, which to-day is and to- morrow is cast into the oven,how much more shall He clothe you, O ye of little faith!'It was best, therefore, that the soul of man, which was stillweakly desiring earthly things, should be accustomed to seekfrom God alone even these petty temporal boons, and theearthly necessaries of this transitory life, which are contemptible in comparison with eternal blessings, in order that thedesire even of these things might not draw it aside from theworship of Him, to whom we come by despising and forsakingsuch things.15. Ofthe ministry of the holy angels, by which theyfulfil the providence ofGod.32And so it has pleased Divine Providence, as I have said,and as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that the lawenjoining the worship of one God should be given by thedisposition of angels. But among them the person of GodHimself visibly appeared, not, indeed, in His proper substance,which ever remains invisible to mortal eyes, but by the infallible signs furnished by creation in obedience to its Creator.He made use, too, of the words of human speech, utteringthem syllable by syllable successively, though in His ownnature He speaks not in a bodily but in a spiritual way;not to sense, but to the mind; not in words that occupytime, but, if I may so say, eternally, neither beginning tospeak nor coming to an end. And what He says is accuratelyheard, not by the bodily but by the mental ear of His ministersand messengers, who are immortally blessed in the enjoyment1 Plotin. Ennead. III. ii. 13. Matt. vi. 28-30. Acts vii. 53.404 THE [воок х.CITY OF GOD.of His unchangeable truth; and the directions which they insome ineffable way receive, they execute without delay ordifficulty in the sensible and visible world. And this lawwas given in conformity with the age of the world, and contained at the first earthly promises, as I have said, which,however, symbolized eternal ones; and these eternal blessingsfew understood, though many took a part in the celebrationof their visible signs. Nevertheless, with one consent boththe words and the visible rites of that law enjoin the worshipof one God, not one of a crowd of gods, but Him who madeheaven and earth, and every soul and every spirit which isother than Himself. He created; all else was created; and,both for being and well-being, all things need Him whocreated them.16. Whether those angels who demand that we pay them divine honour, orthose who teach us to render holy service, not to themselves, but to God,are to be trusted about the way to life eternal.What angels, then, are we to believe in this matter of blessedand eternal life?-thosewho wish to be worshipped with religiousrites and observances, and require that men sacrifice to them;or those who say that all this worship is due to one God, theCreator, and teach us to render it with true piety to Him, bythe vision of whom they are themselves already blessed, andin whom they promise that we shall be so? For that visionof God is the beauty of a vision so great, and is so infinitelydesirable, that Plotinus does not hesitate to say that he whoenjoys all other blessings in abundance, and has not this, issupremely miserable. Since, therefore, miracles are wroughtby some angels to induce us to worship this God, by others,to induce us to worship themselves; and since the former forbidus to worship these, while the latter dare not forbid us toworship God, which are we to listen to? Let the Platonistsreply, or any philosophers, or the theurgists, or rather, periurgists, —for this name is good enough for those who practisesuch arts. In short, let all men answer,-if, at least, theresurvives in them any spark of that natural perception which,as rational beings, they possess when created, -let them, I say,tell us whether we should sacrifice to the gods or angels who1 Ennead. I. vi. 7. Meaning, officious meddlers.2BOOK X. ] APOLOGETIC VALUE OF MIRACLES. 405order us to sacrifice to them, or to that One to whom we areordered to sacrifice by those who forbid us to worship eitherthemselves or these others. If neither the one party nor theother had wrought miracles, but had merely uttered commands,the one to sacrifice to themselves, the other forbidding that,and ordering us to sacrifice to God, a godly mind would havebeen at no loss to discern which command proceeded fromproud arrogance, and which from true religion. I will saymore. If miracles had been wrought only by those who demandsacrifice for themselves, while those who forbade this, andenjoined sacrificing to the one God only, thought fit entirelyto forego the use of visible miracles, the authority of the latterwas to be preferred by all who would use, not their eyes only,but their reason. But since God, for the sake of commendingto us the oracles of His truth, has, by means of these immortalmessengers, who proclaim His majesty and not their own pride,wrought miracles of surpassing grandeur, certainty, and distinctness, in order that the weak among the godly might notbe drawn away to false religion by those who require us tosacrifice to them and endeavour to convince us by stupendousappeals to our senses, who is so utterly unreasonable as not tochoose and follow the truth, when he finds that it is heraldedby even more striking evidences than falsehood?As for those miracles which history ascribes to the godsof the heathen, —I do not refer to those prodigies which atintervals happen from some unknown physical causes, andwhich are arranged and appointed by Divine Providence, suchas monstrous births, and unusual meteorological phenomena,whether startling only, or also injurious, and which are saidto be brought about and removed by communication withdemons, and by their most deceitful craft, but I refer tothese prodigies which manifestly enough are wrought by theirpower and force, as, that the household gods which Æneascarried from Troy in his flight moved from place to place;that Tarquin cut a whetstone with a razor; that the Epidaurianserpent attached himself as a companion to Esculapius on hisvoyage to Rome; that the ship in which the image of thePhrygian mother stood, and which could not be moved by ahost of men and oxen, was moved by one weak woman, who406 THE CITY OF GOD.[BOOK X.attached her girdle to the vessel and drew it, as proof of herchastity; that a vestal, whose virginity was questioned, removedthe suspicion by carrying from the Tiber a sieve full of waterwithout any of it dropping: these, then, and the like, are byno means to be compared for greatness and virtue to thosewhich, we read, were wrought among God's people. Howmuch less can we compare those marvels, which even the lawsof heathen nations prohibit and punish, -I mean the magicaland theurgic marvels, of which the great part are merelyillusions practised upon the senses, as the drawing down ofthe moon, " that," as Lucan says, " it may shed a strongerinfluence on the plants? "1 And if some of these do seem toequal those which are wrought by the godly, the end forwhich they are wrought distinguishes the two, and shows thatours are incomparably the more excellent. For those miraclescommend the worship of a plurality of gods, who deserveworship the less the more they demand it; but these of ourscommend the worship of the one God, who, both by the testimony of His own Scriptures, and by the eventual abolition ofsacrifices, proves that He needs no such offerings. If, therefore, any angels demand sacrifice for themselves, we mustprefer those who demand it, not for themselves, but for God,the Creator of all, whom they serve. For thus they provehow sincerely they love us, since they wish by sacrifice tosubject us, not to themselves, but to Him by the contemplationof whom they themselves are blessed, and to bring us to Himfrom whom they themselves have never strayed. If, on theother hand, any angels wish us to sacrifice, not to one, but tomany, not, indeed, to themselves, but to the gods whose angelsthey are, we must in this case also prefer those who are theangels of the one God of gods, and who so bid us to worshipHim as to preclude our worshipping any other. But, further,if it be the case, as their pride and deceitfulness rather indicate, that they are neither good angels nor the angels of good.gods, but wicked demons, who wish sacrifice to be paid, not tothe one only and supreme God, but to themselves, what betterprotection against them can we choose than that of the oneGod whom the good angels serve, the angels who bid us1 Pharsal. vi. 503.BOOK X. ] THE ARK OF THE TESTIMONY. 407sacrifice, not to themselves, but to Him whose sacrifice weourselves ought to be?17. Concerning the ark of the covenant, and the miraculous signs whereby God authenticated the law and the promise.On this account it was that the law of God, given by thedisposition of angels, and which commanded that the one Godof gods alone receive sacred worship, to the exclusion of allothers, was deposited in the ark, called the ark of the testimony. By this name it is sufficiently indicated, not thatGod, who was worshipped by all those rites, was shut up andenclosed in that place, though His responses emanated fromit along with signs appreciable by the senses, but that Hiswill was declared from that throne. The law itself, too, wasengraven on tables of stone, and, as I have said, deposited inthe ark, which the priests carried with due reverence duringthe sojourn in the wilderness, along with the tabernacle, whichwas in like manner called the tabernacle of the testimony;and there was then an accompanying sign, which appeared asa cloud by day and as a fire by night; when the cloudmoved, the camp was shifted, and where it stood the campwas pitched. Besides these signs, and the voices which proceeded from the place where the ark was, there were othermiraculous testimonies to the law. For when the ark wascarried across Jordan, on the entrance to the land of promise,the upper part of the river stopped in its course, and thelower part flowed on, so as to present both to the ark and thepeople dry ground to pass over. Then, when it was carriedseven times round the first hostile and polytheistic city theycame to, its walls suddenly fell down, though assaulted by nohand, struck by no battering-ram. Afterwards, too, whenthey were now resident in the land of promise, and the arkhad, in punishment of their sin, been taken by their enemies,its captors triumphantly placed it in the temple of theirfavourite god, and left it shut up there, but, on opening thetemple next day, they found the image they used to pray tofallen to the ground and shamefully shattered. Then, beingthemselves alarmed by portents, and still more shamefullypunished, they restored the ark of the testimony to the peoplefrom whom they had taken it. And what was the manner of408 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK X.its restoration? They placed it on a wagon, and yoked toit cows from which they had taken the calves, and letthem choose their own course, expecting that in this way thedivine will would be indicated; and the cows, without anyman driving or directing them, steadily pursued the way tothe Hebrews, without regarding the lowing of their calves,and thus restored the ark to its worshippers. To God theseand such like wonders are small, but they are mighty to terrifyand give wholesome instruction to men. For if philosophers,and especially the Platonists, are with justice esteemed wiserthan other men, as I have just been mentioning, because theytaught that even these earthly and insignificant things areruled by Divine Providence, inferring this from the numberlessbeauties which are observable not only in the bodies of animals,but even in plants and grasses, how much more plainly dothese things attest the presence of divinity which happen atthe time predicted, and in which that religion is commendedwhich forbids the offering of sacrifice to any celestial, terrestrial,or infernal being, and commands it to be offered to God only,who alone blesses us by His love for us, and by our love toHim, and who, by arranging the appointed times of thosesacrifices, and by predicting that they were to pass into a bettersacrifice by a better Priest, testified that He has no appetitefor these sacrifices, but through them indicated others of moresubstantial blessing, —and all this not that He Himself maybe glorified by these honours, but that we may be stirred upto worship and cleave to Him, being inflamed by His love,which is our advantage rather than His?13. Against those who deny that the books of the Church are to be believed aboutthe miracles whereby the people ofGod were educated.Will some one say that these miracles are false, that theynever happened, and that the records of them are lies? Whoever says so, and asserts that in such matters no records whatever can be credited, may also say that there are no gods whocare for human affairs. For they have induced men to worship them only by means of miraculous works, which theheathen histories testify, and by which the gods have made adisplay of their own power rather than done any real service.This is the reason why we have not undertaken in this work,H167BOOK X. ]CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES. ' 409of which we are now writing the tenth book, to refute thosewho either deny that there is any divine power, or contendthat it does not interfere with human affairs, but those whoprefer their own god to our God, the Founder of the holy andmost glorious city, not knowing that He is also the invisible.and unchangeable Founder of this visible and changing world,and the truest bestower of the blessed life which resides notin things created, but in Himself. For thus speaks His mosttrustworthy prophet: " It is good for me to be united to God. "1Among philosophers it is a question, what is that end andgood to the attainment of which all our duties are to have arelation? The Psalmist did not say, It is good for me to havegreat wealth, or to wear imperial insignia, purple, sceptre,and diadem; or, as some even of the philosophers have notblushed to say, It is good for me to enjoy sensual pleasure;or, as the better men among them seemed to say, My good ismy spiritual strength; but, " It is good for me to be unitedto God. " This he had learned from Him whom the holyangels, with the accompanying witness of miracles, presentedas the sole object of worship. And hence he himself becamethe sacrifice of God, whose spiritual love inflamed him, andinto whose ineffable and incorporeal embrace he yearned tocast himself. Moreover, if the worshippers of many gods.(whatever kind of gods they fancy their own to be) believethat the miracles recorded in their civil histories, or in thebooks of magic, or of the more respectable theurgy, werewrought by these gods, what reason have they for refusingto believe the miracles recorded in those writings, to whichwe owe a credence as much greater as He is greater to whomalone these writings teach us to sacrifice?19. On the reasonableness of offering, as the true religion teaches, a visible sacrifice to the one true and invisible God.As to those who think that these visible sacrifices are suitably offered to other gods, but that invisible sacrifices, thegraces of purity of mind and holiness of will, should be offered,as greater and better, to the invisible God, Himself greaterand better than all others, they must be oblivious that thesevisible sacrifices are signs of the invisible, as the words we' Ps. lxxiii. 28.410 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK X.utter are the signs of things. And therefore, as in prayer orpraise we direct intelligible words to Him to whom in ourheart we offer the very feelings we are expressing, so we areto understand that in sacrifice we offer visible sacrifice onlyto Him to whom in our heart we ought to present ourselvesan invisible sacrifice. It is then that the angels, and all thosesuperior powers who are mighty by their goodness and piety,regard us with pleasure, and rejoice with us and assist us tothe utmost of their power. But if we offer such worship tothem, they decline it; and when on any mission to men theybecome visible to the senses, they positively forbid it. Examples of this occur in holy writ. Some fancied they should,by adoration or sacrifice, pay the same honour to angels as isdue to God, and were prevented from doing so by the angelsthemselves, and ordered to render it to Him to whom alonethey know it to be due. And the holy angels have in thisbeen imitated by holy men of God. For Paul and Barnabas,when they had wrought a miracle of healing in Lycaonia, werethought to be gods, and the Lycaonians desired to sacrifice tothem, and they humbly and piously declined this honour, andannounced to them the God in whom they should believe.And those deceitful and proud spirits, who exact worship, doso simply because they know it to be due to the true God.For that which they take pleasure in is not, as Porphyry saysand some fancy, the smell of the victims, but divine honours.They have, in fact, plenty odours on all hands, and if theywished more, they could provide them for themselves. Butthe spirits who arrogate to themselves divinity are delightednot with the smoke of carcases, but with the suppliant spiritwhich they deceive and hold in subjection, and hinder fromdrawing near to God, preventing him from offering himself insacrifice to God by inducing him to sacrifice to others.20. Ofthe supreme and true sacrifice which was effected by the Mediator between God and men.And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assumingthe form of a servant, He became the Mediator between Godand men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of GodHe received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom Heis one God, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather toBOOK X. ] DEMONS OVERCOME BY MARTYRS. 411be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instanceany one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice shouldbe rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priestwho offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed thatthere should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of theChurch, which, being His body, learns to offer herself throughHim. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saintswere the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variouslyfigured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words,that there may be less weariness when we speak of it much.To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices havegiven place.21. Ofthe power delegated to demonsfor the trial and glorification ofthe saints,who conquer not by propitiating the spirits of the air, but by abiding in God.The power delegated to the demons at certain appointedand well-adjusted seasons, that they may give expressionto their hostility to the city of God by stirring up againstit the men who are under their influence, and may notonly receive sacrifice from those who willingly offer it,but may also extort it from the unwilling by violent persecution;—this power is found to be not merely harmless, buteven useful to the Church, completing as it does the numberof martyrs, whom the city of God esteems as all the moreillustrious and honoured citizens, because they have striven.even to blood against the sin of impiety. If the ordinarylanguage of the Church allowed it, we might more elegantlycall these men our heroes. For this name is said to bederived from Juno, who in Greek is called Hêrê, and hence,according to the Greek myths, one of her sons was calledHeros. And these fables mystically signified that Juno wasmistress of the air, which they suppose to be inhabited bythe demons and the heroes, understanding by heroes the soulsof the well-deserving dead. But for a quite opposite reasonwould we call our martyrs heroes, supposing, as I said, thatthe usage of ecclesiastical language would admit of it, notbecause they lived along with the demons in the air, butbecause they conquered these demons or powers of the air,and among them Juno herself, be she what she may, not412 [ BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.unsuitably represented, as she commonly is by the poets, ashostile to virtue, and jealous of men of mark aspiring to theheavens. Virgil, however, unhappily gives way, and yields toher; for, though he represents her as saying, " I am conqueredby Eneas," Helenus gives Æneas himself this religiousadvice:66 Pay vows to Juno: overbearHer queenly soul with gift and prayer."12In conformity with this opinion, Porphyry-expressing, however, not so much his own views as other people's says thata good god or genius cannot come to a man unless the evilgenius has been first of all propitiated, implying that the evildeities had greater power than the good; for, until they havebeen appeased and give place, the good can give no assistance; and if the evil deities oppose, the good can give nohelp; whereas the evil can do injury without the good beingable to prevent them. This is not the way of the true andtruly holy religion; not thus do our martyrs conquer Juno,that is to say, the powers of the air, who envy the virtues ofthe pious. Our heroes, if we could so call them, overcomeHêrê, not by suppliant gifts, but by divine virtues. AsScipio, who conquered Africa by his valour, is more suitably styled Africanus than if he had appeased his enemiesby gifts, and so won their mercy.22. Whence the saints derive power against demons and true purification ofheart.It is by true piety that men of God cast out the hostilepower of the air which opposes godliness; it is by exorcisingit, not by propitiating it; and they overcome all the temptations of the adversary by praying, not to him, but to theirown God against him. For the devil cannot conquer orsubdue any but those who are in league with sin; andtherefore he is conquered in the name of Him who assumedhumanity, and that without sin, that Himself being bothPriest and Sacrifice, He might bring about the remission ofsins, that is to say, might bring it about through the Mediatorbetween God and men, the man Christ Jesus, by whom we arereconciled to God, the cleansing from sin being accomplished.1 Eneid, vii. 310. 2 Eneid, iii. 438, 439.BOOK X. ]ALEXANDRIAN TRINITY. 413For men are separated from God only by sins, from which weare in this life cleansed not by our own virtue, but by thedivine compassion; through His indulgence, not through ourown power. For, whatever virtue we call our own is itselfbestowed upon us by His goodness. And we might attributetoo much to ourselves while in the flesh, unless we lived inthe receipt of pardon until we laid it down. This is thereason why there has been vouchsafed to us, through theMediator, this grace, that we who are polluted by sinful fleshshould be cleansed by the likeness of sinful flesh. By thisgrace of God, wherein He has shown His great compassiontoward us, we are both governed by faith in this life, and,after this life, are led onwards to the fullest perfection by thevision of immutable truth.23. Ofthe principles which, according to the Platonists, regulate the purification ofthe soul.Even Porphyry asserts that it was revealed by divineoracles that we are not purified by any sacrifices¹ to sunor moon, meaning it to be inferred that we are not purifiedby sacrificing to any gods. For what mysteries can purify,if those of the sun and moon, which are esteemed the chiefof the celestial gods, do not purify? He says, too, in thesame place, that " principles " can purify, lest it should besupposed, from his saying that sacrificing to the sun andmoon cannot purify, that sacrificing to some other of the hostof gods might do so. And what he as a Platonist means by"principles," we know. For he speaks of God the Father andGod the Son, whom he calls (writing in Greek) the intellector mind of the Father; but of the Holy Spirit he says eithernothing, or nothing plainly, for I do not understand what otherhe speaks of as holding the middle place between these two.1 Teletis.2 The Platonists of the Alexandrian and Athenian schools, from Plotinus toProclus, are at one in recognising in God three principles or hypostases: 1st,the One or the Good, which is the Father; 2d, the Intelligence or Word, whichis the Son; 3d, the Soul, which is the universal principle of life. But as tothe nature and order of these hypostases, the Alexandrians are no longer at onewith the school of Athens. On the very subtle differences between the Trinityof Plotinus and that of Porphyry, consult M. Jules Simon, ii. 110, and M.Vacherot, ii. 37. -SAISSET.3 See below, c. 28.414 THE [ BOOK X. CITY OF GOD.For if, like Plotinus in his discussion regarding the threeprincipal substances, ' he wished us to understand by thisthird the soul of nature, he would certainly not have givenit the middle place between these two, that is, between theFather and the Son. For Plotinus places the soul of natureafter the intellect of the Father, while Porphyry, making itthe mean, does not place it after, but between the others.No doubt he spoke according to his light, or as he thoughtexpedient; but we assert that the Holy Spirit is the Spiritnot of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but of both.For philosophers speak as they have a mind to, and in themost difficult matters do not scruple to offend religious ears;but we are bound to speak according to a certain rule, lestfreedom of speech beget impiety of opinion about the mattersthemselves of which we speak.24. Of the one only true principle which alone purifies and renewshuman nature.Accordingly, when we speak of God, we do not affirm twoor three principles, no more than we are at liberty to affirmtwo or three gods; although, speaking of each, of the Father,or of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost, we confess that each isGod and yet we do not say, as the Sabellian heretics say,that the Father is the same as the Son, and the Holy Spiritthe same as the Father and the Son; but we say that theFather is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of theFather, and that the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Sonis neither the Father nor the Son. It was therefore trulysaid that man is cleansed only by a Principle, although thePlatonists erred in speaking in the plural of principles. ButPorphyry, being under the dominion of these envious powers,whose influence he was at once ashamed of and afraid tothrow off, refused to recognise that Christ is the Principle bywhose incarnation we are purified. Indeed he despised Him,because of the flesh itself which He assumed, that He mightoffer a sacrifice for our purification,-a great mystery, unintelligible to Porphyry's pride, which that true and benignantRedeemer brought low by His humility, manifesting Himselfto mortals by the mortality which He assumed, and which1 Ennead. v. 1.BOOK X. ] CHRIST THE PURIFIER. 415the malignant and deceitful mediators are proud of wanting,promising, as the boon of immortals, a deceptive assistance towretched men. Thus the good and true Mediator showedthat it is sin which is evil, and not the substance or natureof flesh; for this, together with the human soul, could withoutsin be both assumed and retained, and laid down in death,and changed to something better by resurrection. He showedalso that death itself, although the punishment of sin, wassubmitted to by Him for our sakes without sin, and mustnot be evaded by sin on our part, but rather, if opportunityserves, be borne for righteousness' sake. For he was ableto expiate sins by dying, because He both died, and not forsin of His own. But He has not been recognised by Porphyry as the Principle, otherwise he would have recognisedHim as the Purifier. The Principle is neither the flesh northe human soul in Christ, but the Word by which all thingswere made. The flesh, therefore, does not by its own virtuepurify, but by virtue of the Word by which it was assumed,when " the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, for, fre itu questspeaking mystically of eating His flesh, when those who didnot understand Him were offended and went away, saying," This is an hard saying, who can hear it? " He answered tothe rest who remained, " It is the Spirit that quickeneth;the flesh profiteth nothing." The Principle, therefore, havingassumed a human soul and flesh, cleanses the soul and fleshof believers. Therefore, when the Jews asked Him who Hewas, He answered that He was the Principle. And this wecarnal and feeble men, liable to sin, and involved in the darkness of ignorance, could not possibly understand, unless wewere cleansed and healed by Him, both by means of what wewere, and of what we were not. For we were men, but wewere not righteous; whereas in His incarnation there was ahuman nature, but it was righteous, and not sinful. Thisis the mediation whereby a hand is stretched to the lapsedand fallen; this is the seed " ordained by angels," by whoseministry the law also was given enjoining the worship of oneGod, and promising that this Mediator should come.1 John i. 14.2 John vi. 60-64.3 John viii. 25; or " the beginning, " following a different reading from ours.416 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK X.mirtingngrés25. That all the saints, both under the law and before it, were justified byfaithin the mystery of Christ's incarnation.It was by faith in this mystery, and godliness of life, thatpurification was attainable even by the saints of old, whetherbefore the law was given to the Hebrews (for God and theangels were even then present as instructors), or in the periodsunder the law, although the promises of spiritual things, beingpresented in figure, seemed to be carnal, and hence the nameof Old Testament. For it was then the prophets lived, bywhom, as by angels, the same promise was announced; andamong them was he whose grand and divine sentiment regarding the end and supreme good of man I have just now quoted,"It is good for me to cleave to God." 1 In this psalm the distinction between the Old and New Testaments is distinctlyannounced. For the Psalmist says, that when he saw thatthe carnal and earthly promises were abundantly enjoyed bythe ungodly, his feet were almost gone, his steps had wellnigh slipped; and that it seemed to him as if he had servedGod in vain, when he saw that those who despised God increased in that prosperity which he looked for at God's hand.He says, too, that, in investigating this matter with the desireof understanding why it was so, he had laboured in vain,until he went into the sanctuary of God, and understood theend of those whom he had erroneously considered happy.Then he understood that they were cast down by that verything, as he says, which they had made their boast, and thatthey had been consumed and perished for their iniquities;and that that, whole fabric of temporal prosperity had becomeas a dream when one awaketh, and suddenly finds himselfdestitute of all the joys he had imaged in sleep. And, asin this earth or earthy city they seemed to themselves to begreat, he says, " O Lord, in Thy city Thou wilt reduce theirimage to nothing." He also shows how beneficial it hadbeen for him to seek even earthly blessings only from theone true God, in whose power are all things, for he says, " Asa beast was I before Thee, and I am always with Thee."a beast," he says, meaning that he was stupid. For I oughtto have sought from Thee such things as the ungodly could1 Ps. lxxiii. 28." AsBOOK X. ] DAVID CHOOSING GOD. 417166.not enjoy as well as I, and not those things which I sawthem enjoying in abundance, and hence concluded I was serving Thee in vain, because they who declined to serve Theehad what I had not. Nevertheless, " I am always with Thee,"because even in my desire for such things I did not pray toother gods. And consequently he goes on, " Thou hast holdenme by my right hand, and by Thy counsel Thou hast guided.me, and with glory hast taken me up;" as if all earthly advantages were left-hand blessings, though, when he saw themenjoyed by the wicked, his feet had almost gone. " For what,"he says, " have I in heaven, and what have I desired fromThee upon earth? " He blames himself, and is justly displeased with himself; because, though he had in heaven sovast a possession (as he afterwards understood) , he yet soughtfrom his God on earth a transitory and fleeting happiness,-ahappiness of mire, we may say. My heart and my flesh," hesays, " fail, O God of my heart." Happy failure, from thingsbelow to things above! And hence in another psalm hesays, " My soul longeth, yea, even faileth, for the courts of theLord." Yet, though he had said of both his heart and hisflesh that they were failing, he did not say, O God of myheart and my flesh, but, O God of my heart; for by theheart the flesh is made clean. Therefore, says the Lord,"Cleanse that which is within, and the outside shall be cleanalso." He then says that God Himself, not anythingreceived from Him, but Himself, -is his portion. " The Godof my heart, and my portion for ever." Among the variousobjects of human choice. God alone satisfied him. " For, lo,"he says, "they that are far from Thee shall perish: Thou destroyest all them that go a- whoring from Thee," -that is, whoprostitute themselves to many gods. And then follows theverse for which all the rest of the psalm seems to prepare:" It is good for me to cleave to God," —not to go far off; notto go a-whoring with a multitude of gods. And then shallthis union with God be perfected, when all that is to be redeemed in us has been redeemed. But for the present wemust, as he goes on to say, " place our hope in God." " Forthat which is seen," says the apostle, " is not hope. For what1 Ps. lxxxiv. 2." 2VOL. L2 Matt. xxiii. 26.2 D418 THE [BOOK X. CITY OF GOD.a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope forthat we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." ¹Being, then, for the present established in this hope, let us dowhat the Psalmist further indicates, and become in our measure angels or messengers of God, declaring His will, andpraising His glory and His grace. For when he had said,"To place my hope in God," he goes on, " that I may declareall Thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion." Thisis the most glorious city of God; this is the city which knowsand worships one God: she is celebrated by the holy angels,who invite us to their society, and desire us to become fellowcitizens with them in this city; for they do not wish us toworship them as our gods, but to join them in worshippingtheir God and ours; nor to sacrifice to them, but, together withthem, to become a sacrifice to God. Accordingly, whoeverwill lay aside malignant obstinacy, and consider these things,shall be assured that all these blessed and immortal spirits,who do not envy us (for if they envied they were not blessed),but rather love us, and desire us to be as blessed as themselves, look on us with greater pleasure, and give us greaterassistance, when we join them in worshipping one God,Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, than if we were to offer tothemselves sacrifice and worship.26. Of Porphyry's weakness in wavering between the confession ofthe true Godand the worship ofdemons.I know not how it is so, but it seems to me that Porphyryblushed for his friends the theurgists; for he knew all thatI have adduced, but did not frankly condemn polytheisticworship. He said, in fact, that there are some angels whovisit earth, and reveal divine truth to theurgists, and otherswho publish on earth the things that belong to the Father,His height and depth. Can we believe, then, that the angelswhose office it is to declare the will of the Father, wish us tobe subject to any but Him whose will they declare? Andhence, even this Platonist himself judiciously observes that weshould rather imitate than invoke them. We ought not, then,to fear that we may offend these immortal and happy subjects¹ Rom. viii. 24, 25.BOOK X. ]PORPHYRY'S INCONSISTENCY. 419of the one God by not sacrificing to them; for this theyknow to be due only to the one true God, in allegiance towhom they themselves find their blessedness, and thereforethey will not have it given to them, either in figure or in thereality, which the mysteries of sacrifice symbolized. Sucharrogance belongs to proud and wretched demons, whose disposition is diametrically opposite to the piety of those who aresubject to God, and whose blessedness consists in attachmentto Him. And, that we also may attain to this bliss, they aidus, as is fit, with sincere kindliness, and usurp over us nodominion, but declare to us Him under whose rule we are thenfellow-subjects. Why, then, O philosopher, do you still fearto speak freely against the powers which are inimical both totrue virtue and to the gifts of the true God? Already youhave discriminated between the angels who proclaim God'swill, and those who visit theurgists, drawn down by I knownot what art. Why do you still ascribe to these latter thehonour of declaring divine truth? If they do not declare thewill of the Father, what divine revelations can they make?Are not these the evil spirits who were bound over by theincantations of an envious man,¹ that they should not grantpurity of soul to another, and could not, as you say, be setfree from these bonds by a good man anxious for purity, andrecover power over their own actions? Do you still doubtwhether these are wicked demons; or do you, perhaps, feignignorance, that you may not give offence to the theurgists, whohave allured you by their secret rites, and have taught you,as a mighty boon, these insane and pernicious devilries?you dare to elevate above the air, and even to heaven, theseenvious powers, or pests, let me rather call them, less worthyof the name of sovereign than of slaves, as you yourself own;and are you not ashamed to place them even among yoursidereal gods, and so put a slight upon the stars themselves?27. Ofthe impiety ofPorphyry, which is worse than even the mistake ofApuleius.DoHow much more tolerable and accordant with human feeling is the error of your Platonist co-sectary Apuleius for he1 See above, c. 9.420 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK X.attributed the diseases and storms of human passions onlyto the demons who occupy a grade beneath the moon, andmakes even this avowal as by constraint regarding gods whomhe honours; but the superior and celestial gods, who inhabitthe ethereal regions, whether visible, as the sun, moon, andother luminaries, whose brilliancy makes them conspicuous, orinvisible, but believed in by him, he does his utmost to remove beyond the slightest stain of these perturbations. It isnot, then, from Plato, but from your Chaldæan teachers youhave learned to elevate human vices to the ethereal and empyreal regions of the world and to the celestial firmament,in order that your theurgists might be able to obtain fromyour gods divine revelations; and yet you make yourselfsuperior to these divine revelations by your intellectual life,which dispenses with these theurgic purifications as notneeded by a philosopher. But, by way of rewarding yourteachers, you recommend these arts to other men, who, notbeing philosophers, may be persuaded to use what you acknowledge to be useless to yourself, who are capable of higherthings; so that those who cannot avail themselves of thevirtue of philosophy, which is too arduous for the multitude,may, at your instigation, betake themselves to theurgists bywhom they may be purified, not, indeed, in the intellectual, butin the spiritual part of the soul. Now, as the persons who areunfit for philosophy form incomparably the majority of mankind, more may be compelled to consult these secret and illicitteachers of yours than frequent the Platonic schools. Forthese most impure demons, pretending to be ethereal gods,whose herald and messenger you have become, have promisedthat those who are purified by theurgy in the spiritual part oftheir soul shall not indeed return to the Father, but shalldwell among the ethereal gods above the aerial regions.such fancies are not listened to by the multitudes of menwhom Christ came to set free from the tyranny of demons.For in Him they have the most gracious cleansing, in whichmind, spirit, and body alike participate. For, in order thatHe might heal the whole man from the plague of sin, Hetook without sin the whole human nature.had known Him, and would that you had committed yourselfButWould that youBOOK X. ]PORPHYRY ON PURIFICATION. 421for healing to Him rather than to your own frail and infirmhuman virtue, or to pernicious and curious arts! He wouldnot have deceived you; for Him your own oracles, on yourown showing, acknowledged holy and immortal. It is of Him,too, that the most famous poet speaks, poetically indeed, sincehe applies it to the person of another, yet truly, if you refer itto Christ, saying, “ Under thine auspices, if any traces of ourcrimes remain, they shall be obliterated, and earth freed fromits perpetual fear." 1 By which he indicates that, by reason ofthe infirmity which attaches to this life, the greatest progress invirtue and righteousness leaves room for the existence, if notof crimes, yet of the traces of crimes, which are obliterated onlyby that Saviour of whom this verse speaks. For that hedid not say this at the prompting of his own fancy, Virgil tellsus in almost the last verse of that 4th Eclogue, when hesays, " The last age predicted by the Cumaan sibyl has nowarrived; " whence it plainly appears that this had been dictated by the Cumaan sibyl. But those theurgists, or ratherdemons, who assume the appearance and form of gods, polluterather than purify the human spirit by false appearances andthe delusive mockery of unsubstantial forms. How can thosewhose own spirit is unclean cleanse the spirit of man? Werethey not unclean, they would not be bound by the incantationsof an envious man, and would neither be afraid nor grudgeto bestow that hollow boon which they promise. But it issufficient for our purpose that you acknowledge that the intellectual soul, that is, our mind, cannot be justified bytheurgy; and that even the spiritual or inferior part of oursoul cannot by this act be made eternal and immortal, thoughyou maintain that it can be purified by it. Christ, however,promises life eternal; and therefore to Him the world flocks,greatly to your indignation, greatly also to your astonishmentand confusion. What avails your forced avowal that theurgyleads men astray, and deceives vast numbers by its ignorantand foolish teaching, and that it is the most manifest mistaketo have recourse by prayer and sacrifice to angels and principalities, when at the same time, to save yourself from thecharge of spending labour in vain on such arts, you direct1 Virgil, Eclog. iv. 13, 14.422 [BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.men to the theurgists, that by their means men, who do notlive by the rule of the intellectual soul, may have their spiritual soul purified?28. How it is that Porphyry has been so blind as not to recognise the true wisdom-Christ.You drive men, therefore, into the most palpable error. Andyet you are not ashamed of doing so much harm, thoughyou call yourself a lover of virtue and wisdom. Had youbeen true and faithful in this profession, you would have recognised Christ, the virtue of God and the wisdom of God,and would not, in the pride of vain science, have revolted fromHis wholesome humility. Nevertheless you acknowledge thatthe spiritual part of the soul can be purified by the virtue ofchastity without the aid of those theurgic arts and mysterieswhich you wasted your time in learning. You even say,sometimes, that these mysteries do not raise the soul afterdeath, so that, after the termination of this life, they seem to beof no service even to the part you call spiritual; and yet yourecur on every opportunity to these arts, for no other purpose,so far as I see, than to appear an accomplished theurgist, andgratify those who are curious in illicit arts, or else to inspireothers with the same curiosity. But we give you all praisefor saying that this art is to be feared, both on account of thelegal enactments against it, and by reason of the danger involved in the very practice of it. And would that in this,at least, you were listened to by its wretched votaries, thatthey might be withdrawn from entire absorption in it, or mighteven be preserved from tampering with it at all! You say,indeed, that ignorance, and the numberless vices resulting fromit, cannot be removed by any mysteries, but only by the warpKOS VOûs, that is, the Father's mind or intellect conscious ofthe Father's will. But that Christ is this mind you do notbelieve; for Him you despise on account of the body He tookof a woman and the shame of the cross; for your lofty wisdomspurns such low and contemptible things, and soars to moreexalted regions. But He fulfils what the holy prophets trulypredicted regarding Him: " I will destroy the wisdom of thewise, and bring to nought the prudence of the prudent." 11 Isa. xxix. 14.πατριBOOK X. ]PORPHYRY'S DENIAL OF CHRIST. 423For He does not destroy and bring to nought His own gift inthem, but what they arrogate to themselves, and do not holdof Him. And hence the apostle, having quoted this testimonyfrom the prophet, adds, "Where is the wise? where is thescribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not Godmade foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that, inthe wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, itpleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them thatbelieve. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seekafter wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jewsa stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but untothem which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ thepower of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God isstronger than men."1 This is despised as a weak and foolishthing by those who are wise and strong in themselves; yetthis is the grace which heals the weak, who do not proudlyboast a blessedness of their own, but rather humbly acknowledge their real misery.29. Ofthe incarnation ofour Lord Jesus Christ, which the Platonistsin their impiety blush to acknowledge.You proclaim the Father and His Son, whom you call theFather's intellect or mind, and between these a third, by whomwe suppose you mean the Holy Spirit, and in your own fashionyou call these three Gods. In this, though your expressionsare inaccurate, you do in some sort, and as through a veil, seewhat we should strive towards; but the incarnation of theunchangeable Son of God, whereby we are saved, and areenabled to reach the things we believe, or in part understand,this is what you refuse to recognise. You see in a fashion,although at a distance, although with filmy eye, the countryin which we should abide; but the way to it you know not.Yet you believe in grace, for you say it is granted to few toreach God by virtue of intelligence. For you do not say, " Fewhave thought fit or have wished," but, " It has been grantedto few," distinctly acknowledging God's grace, not man'ssufficiency. You also use this word more expressly, when, in11 Cor. i. 19-25.―424 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK X.accordance with the opinion of Plato, you make no doubt thatin this life a man cannot by any means attain to perfectwisdom, but that whatever is lacking is in the future lifemade up to those who live intellectually, by God's providenceand grace. Oh, had you but recognised the grace of God inJesus Christ our Lord, and that very incarnation of His,wherein He assumed a human soul and body, you mighthave seemed the brightest example of grace! ¹ But what amI doing? I know it is useless to speak to a dead man, —useless, at least, so far as regards you, but perhaps not invain for those who esteem you highly, and love you onaccount of their love of wisdom or curiosity about those artswhich you ought not to have learned; and these persons Iaddress in your name. The grace of God could not havebeen more graciously commended to us than thus, that theonly Son of God, remaining unchangeable in Himself, shouldassume humanity, and should give us the hope of His love,by means of the mediation of a human nature, through whichwe, from the condition of men, might come to Him who was sofar off, the immortal from the mortal; the unchangeable fromthe changeable; the just from the unjust; the blessed fromthe wretched. And, as He had given us a natural instinct todesire blessedness and immortality, He Himself continuingto be blessed, but assuming mortality, by enduring what wefear, taught us to despise it, that what we long for He mightbestow upon us.But in order to your acquiescence in this truth, it is lowlinessthat is requisite, and to this it is extremely difficult to bendyou. For what is there incredible, especially to men like you,accustomed to speculation, which might have predisposed youto believe in this,-what is there incredible, I say, in theassertion that God assumed a human soul and body? Youyourselves ascribe such excellence to the intellectual soul,which is, after all, the human soul, that you maintain that itcan become consubstantial with that intelligence of the Fatherwhom you believe in as the Son of God. What incrediblething is it, then, if some one soul be assumed by Him in anineffable and unique manner for the salvation of many?1 According to another reading, " You might have seen it to be, " etc.BOOK X. ] PLATONISM AND THE INCARNATION. 425Moreover, our nature itself testifies that a man is incompleteunless a body be united with the soul. This certainly wouldbe more incredible, were it not of all things the most common;for we should more easily believe in a union between spiritand spirit, or, to use your own terminology, between theincorporeal and the incorporeal, even though the one werehuman, the other divine, the one changeable and the otherunchangeable, than in a union between the corporeal and theincorporeal. But perhaps it is the unprecedented birth of abody from a virgin that staggers you? But, so far from thisbeing a difficulty, it ought rather to assist you to receive ourreligion, that a miraculous person was born miraculously. Or,do you find a difficulty in the fact that, after His body hadbeen given up to death, and had been changed into a higherkind of body by resurrection, and was now no longer mortalbut incorruptible, He carried it up into heavenly places?Perhaps you refuse to believe this, because you remember thatPorphyry, in these very books from which I have cited somuch, and which treat of the return of the soul, so frequentlyteaches that a body of every kind is to be escaped from, inorder that the soul may dwell in blessedness with God. Buthere, in place of following Porphyry, you ought rather to havecorrected him, especially since you agree with him in believingsuch incredible things about the soul of this visible world andhuge material frame. For, as scholars of Plato, you hold thatthe world is an animal, and a very happy animal, which youwish to be also everlasting. How, then, is it never to be loosedfrom a body, and yet never lose its happiness, if, in order tothe happiness of the soul, the body must be left behind? Thesun, too, and the other stars, you not only acknowledge to bebodies, in which you have the cordial assent of all seeing men,but also, in obedience to what you reckon a profounder insight,you declare that they are very blessed animals, and eternal,together with their bodies. Why is it, then, that when theChristian faith is pressed upon you, you forget, or pretend toignore, what you habitually discuss or teach? Why is it thatyou refuse to be Christians, on the ground that you holdopinions which, in fact, you yourselves demolish? Is it notbecause Christ came in lowliness, and ye are proud? The426 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK X. .precise nature of the resurrection bodies of the saints maysometimes occasion discussion among those who are best readin the Christian Scriptures; yet there is not among us thesmallest doubt that they shall be everlasting, and of a natureexemplified in the instance of Christ's risen body. But whatever be their nature, since we maintain that they shall beabsolutely incorruptible and immortal, and shall offer nohindrance to the soul's contemplation by which it is fixedin God, and as you say that among the celestials the bodiesof the eternally blessed are eternal, why do you maintain that,in order to blessedness, every body must be escaped from?Why do you thus seek such a plausible reason for escapingfrom the Christian faith, if not because, as I again say, Christis humble and ye proud? Are ye ashamed to be corrected?This is the vice of the proud. It is, forsooth, a degradationfor learned men to pass from the school of Plato to the discipleship of Christ, who by His Spirit taught a fisherman to thinkand to say, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Wordwas with God, and the Word was God. The same was in thebeginning with God. All things were made by Him; andwithout Him was not anything made that was made. In Himwas life; and the life was the light of men. And the lightshineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. " 1The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used totell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying thatthis opening passage of the holy gospel, entitled " Accordingto John," should be written in letters of gold, and hung up inall churches in the most conspicuous place. But the proudscorn to take God for their Master, because "the Word wasmade flesh and dwelt among us. "2 So that, with these miserablecreatures, it is not enough that they are sick, but they boastof their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which couldheal them. And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a moredisastrous fall.30. Porphyry's emendations and modifications ofPlatonism.If it is considered unseemly to emend anything which Platohas touched, why did Porphyry himself make emendations,1 John i. 1-5. * John i. 14.BOOK X.]PORPHYRY'S PLATONISM. 427and these not a few? for it is very certain that Plato wrotethat the souls of men return after death to the bodies ofbeasts.¹ Plotinus also, Porphyry's teacher, held this opinion; "yet Porphyry justly rejected it. He was of opinion thathuman souls return indeed into human bodies, but not intothe bodies they had left, but other new bodies. He shrankfrom the other opinion, lest a woman who had returned intoa mule might possibly carry her own son on her back. Hedid not shrink, however, from a theory which admitted thepossibility of a mother coming back into a girl and marryingher own son. How much more honourable a creed is thatwhich was taught by the holy and truthful angels, uttered bythe prophets who were moved by God's Spirit, preached byHim who was foretold as the coming Saviour by His forerunning heralds, and by the apostles whom He sent forth,and who filled the whole world with the gospel,—how muchmore honourable, I say, is the belief that souls return oncefor all to their own bodies, than that they return again andagain to divers bodies? Nevertheless Porphyry, as I havesaid, did considerably improve upon this opinion, in so far, atleast, as he maintained that human souls could transmigrateonly into human bodies, and made no scruple about demolishing the bestial prisons into which Plato had wished to castthem. He says, too, that God put the soul into the worldthat it might recognise the evils of matter, and return to theFather, and be for ever emancipated from the polluting contact of matter. And although here is some inappropriatethinking (for the soul is rather given to the body that it maydo good; for it would not learn evil unless it did it), yet hecorrects the opinion of other Platonists, and that on a pointof no small importance, inasmuch as he avows that the soul,which is purged from all evil and received to the Father'spresence, shall never again suffer the ills of this life. Bythis opinion he quite subverted the favourite Platonic dogma,that as dead men are made out of living ones, so living menare made out of dead ones; and he exploded the idea whichVirgil seems to have adopted from Plato, that the purifiedsouls which have been sent into the Elysian fields (the poetic1 Comp. Euseb. Præp. Evan. xiii. 16. Ennead. iii. 4. 2.428 [BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.name for the joys of the blessed) are summoned to the riverLethe, that is, to the oblivion of the past," That earthward they may pass once more,Remembering not the things before,And with a blind propension yearnTo fleshly bodies to return. "This found no favour with Porphyry, and very justly; for itis indeed foolish to believe that souls should desire to returnfrom that life, which cannot be very blessed unless by theassurance of its permanence, and to come back into this life ,and to the pollution of corruptible bodies, as if the result ofperfect purification were only to make defilement desirable.For if perfect purification effects the oblivion of all evils, andthe oblivion of evils creates a desire for a body in which thesoul may again be entangled with evils, then the supremefelicity will be the cause of infelicity, and the perfection ofwisdom the cause of foolishness, and the purest cleansing thecause of defilement. And, however long the blessedness ofthe soul last, it cannot be founded on truth, if, in order to beblessed, it must be deceived. For it cannot be blessed unlessit be free from fear. But, to be free from fear, it must beunder the false impression that it shall be always blessed,-the false impression, for it is destined to be also at some timemiserable. How, then, shall the soul rejoice in truth, whosejoy is founded on falsehood? Porphyry saw this, and therefore said that the purified soul returns to the Father, that itmay never more be entangled in the polluting contact withevil. The opinion, therefore, of some Platonists, that there isa necessary revolution carrying souls away and bringing themround again to the same things, is false. But, were it true,what were the advantage of knowing it? Would the Platonists presume to allege their superiority to us, because wewere in this life ignorant of what they themselves were doomedto be ignorant of when perfected in purity and wisdom inanother and better life, and which they must be ignorant ofif they are to be blessed? If it were most absurd and foolishto say so, then certainly we must prefer Porphyry's opinionto the idea of a circulation of souls through constantly alter1 Eneid, vi. 750, 751.BOOK X. ] PLATONIC DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 429nating happiness and misery. And if this is just, here is aPlatonist emending Plato, here is a man who saw what Platodid not see, and who did not shrink from correcting so illustrious a master, but preferred truth to Plato.31. Against the arguments on which the Platonists ground their assertion that the human soul is co- eternal with God.66Why, then, do we not rather believe the divinity in thosematters, which human talent cannot fathom? Why do wenot credit the assertion of divinity, that the soul is not coeternal with God, but is created, and once was not? For thePlatonists seemed to themselves to allege an adequate reasonfor their rejection of this doctrine, when they affirmed thatnothing could be everlasting which had not always existed.Plato, however, in writing concerning the world and the godsin it, whom the Supreme made, most expressly states thatthey had a beginning and yet would have no end, but, by thesovereign will of the Creator, would endure eternally. But,by way of interpreting this, the Platonists have discoveredthat he meant a beginning, not of time, but of cause. Foras if a foot," they say, " had been always from eternity indust, there would always have been a print underneath it;and yet no one would doubt that this print was made by thepressure of the foot, nor that, though the one was made bythe other, neither was prior to the other; so," they say, "theworld and the gods created in it have always been, theirCreator always existing, and yet they were made." If, then,the soul has always existed, are we to say that its wretchedness has always existed? For if there is something in itwhich was not from eternity, but began in time, why is itimpossible that the soul itself, though not previously existing,should begin to be in time? Its blessedness, too, which, ashe owns, is to be more stable, and indeed endless, after thesoul's experience of evils, this undoubtedly has a beginningin time, and yet is to be always, though previously it had noexistence. This whole argumentation, therefore, to establishthat nothing can be endless except that which has had nobeginning, falls to the ground. For here we find the blessedness of the soul, which has a beginning, and yet has no end.And, therefore, let the incapacity of man give place to the430 THE [BOOK X. CITY OF GOD.authority of God; and let us take our belief regarding thetrue religion from the ever-blessed spirits, who do not seek forthemselves that honour which they know to be due to theirGod and ours, and who do not command us to sacrifice saveonly to Him, whose sacrifice, as I have often said already,and must often say again, we and they ought together to be,offered through that Priest who offered Himself to death asacrifice for us, in that human nature which He assumed, andaccording to which He desired to be our Priest.32. Ofthe universal way ofthe soul's deliverance, which Porphyry did not findbecause he did not rightly seek it, and which the grace of Christ has alone thrown open.This is the religion which possesses the universal way fordelivering the soul; for, except by this way, none can bedelivered. This is a kind of royal way, which alone leads toa kingdom which does not totter like all temporal dignities,but stands firm on eternal foundations. And when Porphyrysays, towards the end of the first book De Regressu Anima,that no system of doctrine which furnishes the universal wayfor delivering the soul has as yet been received, either fromthe truest philosophy, or from the ideas and practices of theIndians, or from the reasoning of the Chaldæans, or from anysource whatever, and that no historical reading had madehim acquainted with that way, he manifestly acknowledgesthat there is such a way, but that as yet he was not acquaintedwith it. Nothing of all that he had so laboriously learnedconcerning the deliverance of the soul, nothing of all that heseemed to others, if not to himself, to know and believe, satisfied him. For he perceived that there was still wanting acommanding authority which it might be right to follow in amatter of such importance. And when he says that he hadnot learned from any truest philosophy a system which possessed the universal way of the soul's deliverance, he showsplainly enough, as it seems to me, either that the philosophyof which he was a disciple was not the truest, or that it didnot comprehend such a way. And how can that be the truestphilosophy which does not possess this way? For what elseis the universal way of the soul's deliverance than that by1 Inductio.BOOK X. ] PORPHYRY ON REDEMPTION. 431which all souls universally are delivered, and without which,therefore, no soul is delivered? And when he says, in addition, " or from the ideas and practices of the Indians, or fromthe reasoning of the Chaldæans, or from any source whatever,"he declares in the most unequivocal language that this universal way of the soul's deliverance was not embraced in whathe had learned either from the Indians or the Chaldæans; andyet he could not forbear stating that it was from the Chaldæanshe had derived these divine oracles of which he makes suchfrequent mention. What, therefore, does he mean by thisuniversal way of the soul's deliverance, which had not yetbeen made known by any truest philosophy, or by the doctrinal systems of those nations which were considered to havegreat insight in things divine; because they indulged morefreely in a curious and fanciful science and worship of angels?What is this universal way of which he acknowledges hisignorance, if not a way which does not belong to one nation.as its special property, but is common to all, and divinelybestowed? Porphyry, a man of no mediocre abilities , doesnot question that such a way exists; for he believes thatDivine Providence could not have left men destitute of thisuniversal way of delivering the soul. For he does not saythat this way does not exist, but that this great boon andassistance has not yet been discovered, and has not come tohis knowledge. And no wonder; for Porphyry lived in an agewhen this universal way of the soul's deliverance,—in otherwords, the Christian religion, —was exposed to the persecutionsof idolaters and demon-worshippers, and earthly rulers,' thatthe number of martyrs or witnesses for the truth might becompleted and consecrated, and that by them proof might begiven that we must endure all bodily sufferings in the causeof the holy faith, and for the commendation of the truth.Porphyry, being a witness of these persecutions, concludedthat this way was destined to a speedy extinction, and that it,therefore, was not the universal way of the soul's deliverance,and did not see that the very thing that thus moved him, anddeterred him from becoming a Christian, contributed to theconfirmation and more effectual commendation of our religion.1 Namely, under Diocletian and Maximian.432 [BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.This, then, is the universal way of the soul's deliverance,the way that is granted by the divine compassion to thenations universally. And no nation to which the knowledgeof it has already come, or may hereafter come, ought todemand, Why so soon? or, Why so late?-for the design ofHim who sends it is impenetrable by human capacity. Thiswas felt by Porphyry when he confined himself to saying thatthis gift of God was not yet received, and had not yet cometo his knowledge. For, though this was so, he did not onthat account pronounce that the way itself had no existence. This, I say, is the universal way for the deliveranceof believers, concerning which the faithful Abraham receivedthe divine assurance, " In thy seed shall all nations beblessed." ¹ He, indeed, was by birth a Chaldæan; but, thathe might receive these great promises, and that there mightbe propagated from him a seed " disposed by angels in thehand of a Mediator," in whom this universal way, thrownopen to all nations for the deliverance of the soul, might befound, he was ordered to leave his country, and kindred, andfather's house. Then was he himself, first of all, deliveredfrom the Chaldæan superstitions, and by his obedience worshipped the one true God, whose promises he faithfullytrusted. This is the universal way, of which it is said inholy prophecy, " God be merciful unto us, and bless us, andcause His face to shine upon us; that Thy way may beknown upon earth, Thy saving health among all nations."³And hence, when our Saviour, so long after, had taken fleshof the seed of Abraham, He says of Himself, " I am the way,the truth, and the life." This is the universal way, of whichso long before it had been predicted, " And it shall come topass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's houseshall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall beexalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us goup to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God ofJacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walkin His paths for out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the:1 Gen. xxii. 18.Ps. lxvii. 1, 2.2 Gal. iii. 19.4 John xiv. 6.BOOK X. ] OF THE PURIFICATION OF THE SOUL. 433"12word of the Lord from Jerusalem. "1 This way, therefore, is notthe property of one, but of all nations. The law and the wordof the Lord did not remain in Zion and Jerusalem, but issuedthence to be universally diffused. And therefore the MediatorHimself, after His resurrection, says to His alarmed disciples," These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yetwith you, that all things must be fulfilled which were writtenin the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms,concerning me. Then opened He their understandings thatthey might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them,Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, andto rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance andremission of sins should be preached in His name among allnations, beginning at Jerusalem." This is the universal wayof the soul's deliverance, which the holy angels and the holyprophets formerly disclosed where they could among the fewmen who found the grace of God, and especially in the Hebrewnation, whose commonwealth was, as it were, consecrated toprefigure and fore- announce the city of God which was to begathered from all nations, by their tabernacle, and temple, andpriesthood, and sacrifices. In some explicit statements, andin many obscure foreshadowings, this way was declared; butlatterly came the Mediator Himself in the flesh, and Hisblessed apostles, revealing how the grace of the New Testament more openly explained what had been obscurely hintedto preceding generations, in conformity with the relation ofthe ages of the human race, and as it pleased God in Hiswisdom to appoint, who also bore them witness with signsand miracles, some of which I have cited above. For notonly were there visions of angels, and words heard from thoseheavenly ministrants, but also men of God, armed with theword of simple piety, cast out unclean spirits from the bodiesand senses of men, and healed deformities and sicknesses;the wild beasts of earth and sea, the birds of air, inanimatethings, the elements, the stars, obeyed their divine commands;the powers of hell gave way before them, the dead were restored to life. I say nothing of the miracles peculiar andproper to the Saviour's own person, especially the nativity¹ Isa. ii. 2, 3.VOL. L.2 Luke xxiv. 44-47.2 E434 [BOOK X. THE CITY OF GOD.and the resurrection; in the one of which He wrought onlythe mystery of a virgin maternity, while in the other Hefurnished an instance of the resurrection which all shall atlast experience. This way purifies the whole man, and prepares the mortal in all his parts for immortality. For, toprevent us from seeking for one purgation for the part whichPorphyry calls intellectual, and another for the part he callsspiritual, and another for the body itself, our most mightyand truthful Purifier and Saviour assumed the whole humannature. Except by this way, which has been present amongmen both during the period of the promises and of the proclamation of their fulfilment, no man has been delivered, noman is delivered, no man shall be delivered.As to Porphyry's statement that the universal way of thesoul's deliverance had not yet come to his knowledge by anyacquaintance he had with history, I would ask, what moreremarkable history can be found than that which has takenpossession of the whole world by its authoritative voice? orwhat more trustworthy than that which narrates past events,and predicts the future with equal clearness, and in the unfulfilled predictions of which we are constrained to believe bythose that are already fulfilled? For neither Porphyry norany Platonists can despise divination and prediction, even ofthings that pertain to this life and earthly matters, thoughthey justly despise ordinary soothsaying and the divinationthat is connected with magical arts. They deny that theseare the predictions of great men, or are to be consideredimportant, and they are right; for they are founded, eitheron the foresight of subsidiary causes, as to a professional eyemuch of the course of a disease is foreseen by certain premonitory symptoms, or the unclean demons predict whatthey have resolved to do, that they may thus work upon thethoughts and desires of the wicked with an appearance ofauthority, and incline human frailty to imitate their impureactions. It is not such things that the saints who walk inthe universal way care to predict as important, although, forthe purpose of commending the faith, they knew and oftenpredicted even such things as could not be detected by humanobservation, nor be readily verified by experience. But thereBOOK X. ] PREDICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 435were other truly important and divine events which they predicted, in so far as it was given them to know the will ofGod. For the incarnation of Christ, and all those importantmarvels that were accomplished in Him, and done in Hisname; the repentance of men and the conversion of their willsto God; the remission of sins, the grace of righteousness, thefaith of the pious, and the multitudes in all parts of the worldwho believe in the true divinity; the overthrow of idolatryand demon worship, and the testing of the faithful by trials;the purification of those who persevered, and their deliverancefrom all evil; the day of judgment, the resurrection of thedead, the eternal damnation of the community of the ungodly,and the eternal kingdom of the most glorious city of God,ever-blessed in the enjoyment of the vision of God, thesethings were predicted and promised in the Scriptures of thisway; and of these we see so many fulfilled, that we justlyand piously trust that the rest will also come to pass.for those who do not believe, and consequently do not understand, that this is the way which leads straight to the visionof God and to eternal fellowship with Him, according to thetrue predictions and statements of the Holy Scriptures, theymay storm at our position, but they cannot storm it.AsAnd therefore, in these ten books, though not meeting, Idare say, the expectation of some, yet I have, as the true Godand Lord has vouchsafed to aid me, satisfied the desire ofcertain persons, by refuting the objections of the ungodly,who prefer their own gods to the Founder of the holy city,about which we undertook to speak. Of these ten books, thefirst five were directed against those who think we shouldworship the gods for the sake of the blessings of this life, andthe second five against those who think we should worshipthem for the sake of the life which is to be after death. Andnow, in fulfilment of the promise I made in the first book, Ishall go on to say, as God shall aid me, what I think needsto be said regarding the origin, history, and deserved ends ofthe two cities, which, as already remarked, are in this world.commingled and implicated with one another.436 THE CITY OF GOD.[BOOK XI.BOOK ELEVENTH.ARGUMENT.HERE BEGINS THE SECOND PART OF THIS WORK, WHICH TREATS OF THE ORIGIN,HISTORY, AND DESTINIES OF THE TWO CITIES, THE EARTHLY AND THE HEAVENLY. IN THE FIRST PLACE, AUGUSTINE SHOWS IN THIS BOOK HOWTHE TWO CITIES WERE FORMED ORIGINALLY, BY THE SEPARATION OF THEGOOD AND BAD ANGELS; AND TAKES OCCASION TO TREAT OF THE CREATIONOF THE WORLD, AS IT IS DESCRIBED IN HOLY SCRIPTURE IN THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS.1. Ofthis part ofthe work, wherein we begin to explain the origin and endofthe two cities.THEHE city of God we speak of is the same to which testimony is borne by that Scripture, which excels all thewritings of all nations by its divine authority, and has broughtunder its influence all kinds of minds, and this not by acasual intellectual movement, but obviously by an expressprovidential arrangement. For there it is written, " Gloriousthings are spoken of thee, O city of God." 2 And in anotherpsalm we read, " Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised inthe city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness, increasing the joy of the whole earth. " ³ And, a little after, in thesame psalm, " As we have heard, so have we seen in the cityof the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God. God has established it for ever." And in another, " There is a river thestreams whereof shall make glad the city of our God, the holyplace of the tabernacles of the Most High. God is in themidst of her, she shall not be moved."* From these andsimilar testimonies, all of which it were tedious to cite, wehave learned that there is a city of God, and its Founder hasinspired us with a love which makes us covet its citizenship.To this Founder of the holy city the citizens of the earthlycity prefer their own gods, not knowing that He is the God1 Written in the year 416 or 417.Ps. xlviii. 1.2 Ps. lxxxvii. 3.4 Ps. xlvi. 4.BOOK XI . ]HOW MAN KNOWS GOD. 437of gods, not of false, i.e. of impious and proud gods, who,being deprived of His unchangeable and freely communicatedlight, and so reduced to a kind of poverty- stricken power,eagerly grasp at their own private privileges, and seek divinehonours from their deluded subjects; but of the pious andholy gods, who are better pleased to submit themselves to one,than to subject many to themselves, and who would ratherworship God than be worshipped as God. But to the enemiesof this city we have replied in the ten preceding books, according to our ability and the help afforded by our Lordand King. Now, recognising what is expected of me, andnot unmindful of my promise, and relying, too, on the samesuccour, I will endeavour to treat of the origin, and progress,and deserved destinies of the two cities (the earthly and theheavenly, to wit), which, as we said, are in this present worldcommingled, and as it were entangled together. And, first, Iwill explain how the foundations of these two cities wereoriginally laid, in the difference that arose among the angels.2. Ofthe knowledge of God, to which no man can attain save through theMediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.It is a great and very rare thing for a man, after he hascontemplated the whole creation, corporeal and incorporeal,and has discerned its mutability, to pass beyond it, and, bythe continued soaring of his mind, to attain to the unchangeable substance of God, and, in that height of contemplation, tolearn from God Himself that none but He has made all thatis not of the divine essence. For God speaks with a mannot by means of some audible creature dinning in his ears, sothat atmospheric vibrations connect Him that makes withhim that hears the sound, nor even by means of a spiritualbeing with the semblance of a body, such as we see in dreamsor similar states; for even in this case He speaks as if to theears of the body, because it is by means of the semblance ofa body He speaks, and with the appearance of a real interval ofspace, for visions are exact representations of bodily objects.Not by these, then, does God speak, but by the truth itself,if any one is prepared to hear with the mind rather than withthe body. For He speaks to that part of man which is betterthan all else that is in him, and than which God Himself438 [BOOK XI.THE CITY OF GOD.alone is better.(or, if that cannot be, then, at least, believed) to be made inGod's image, no doubt it is that part of him by which herises above those lower parts he has in common with thebeasts, which brings him nearer to the Supreme. But sincethe mind itself, though naturally capable of reason and intelligence, is disabled by besotting and inveterate vices notmerely from delighting and abiding in, but even from tolerating His unchangeable light, until it has been gradually healed,and renewed, and made capable of such felicity, it had, inthe first place, to be impregnated with faith, and so purified.And that in this faith it might advance the more confidentlytowards the truth, the truth itself, God, God's Son, assuminghumanity without destroying His divinity, established andfounded this faith, that there might be a way for man toman's God through a God-man. For this is the Mediatorbetween God and men, the man Christ Jesus.man that He is the Mediator and the Way.way lieth between him who goes, and the place whither hegoes, there is hope of his reaching it; but if there be no way,or if he know not where it is, what boots it to know whitherhe should go? Now the only way that is infallibly securedagainst all mistakes, is when the very same person is at onceGod and man, God our end, man our way.2For since man is most properly understoodFor it is asSince, if the3. Ofthe authority of the canonical Scriptures composed by the Divine Spirit.This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient,first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards bythe apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is calledcanonical, which has paramount authority, and to which weyield assent in all matters of which we ought not to beignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. For if we attainthe knowledge of present objects by the testimony of our ownsenses, whether internal or external, then, regarding objectsremote from our own senses, we need others to bring their' Homine assumto, non Deo consumto.</p><ul><li> Quo itur Deus, qua itur homo.</li></ul><p>3 A clause is here inserted to give the etymology of præsentia from præ sensibus.BOOK XI. ] CREATION NO PROOF OF CHANGE IN GOD. 439testimony, since we cannot know them by our own, and wecredit the persons to whom the objects have been or aresensibly present. Accordingly, as in the case of visible objectswhich we have not seen, we trust those who have, (and likewise with all sensible objects,) so in the case of things whichare perceived¹ by the mind and spirit, i.e. which are remotefrom our own interior sense, it behoves us to trust those whohave seen them set in that incorporeal light, or abidinglycontemplate them.4. That the world is neither without beginning, nor yet created by a new decreeofGod, by which He afterwards willed what He had not before willed.Of all visible things, the world is the greatest; of all invisible, the greatest is God. But, that the world is, we see;that God is, we believe. That God made the world, we canbelieve from no one more safely than from God Himself. Butwhere have we heard Him? Nowhere more distinctly than inthe Holy Scriptures, where His prophet said, " In the beginningGod created the heavens and the earth. ” 2 Was the prophetpresent when God made the heavens and the earth? No;but the wisdom of God, by whom all things were made, wasthere, and wisdom insinuates itself into holy souls, and makesthem the friends of God and His prophets, and noiselesslyinforms them of His works. They are taught also by theangels of God, who always behold the face of the Father, andannounce His will to whom it befits. Of these prophets washe who said and wrote, " In the beginning God created theheavens and the earth." And so fit a witness was he of God,that the same Spirit of God, who revealed these things to him,enabled him also so long before to predict that our faith alsowould be forthcoming.But why did God choose then to create the heavens andearth which up to that time He had not made? If theywho put this question wish to make out that the world iseternal and without beginning, and that consequently it has¹ Another derivation, sententia from sensus, the inward perception of the mind.2 Gen. i. 1. 3 Prov. viii. 27. 4 Matt. xviii. 10.5 Acommon question among the Epicureans; urged by Velleius in Cic. DeNat. Deor. i. 9; adopted by the Manichæans and spoken to by Augustine in the Conf. xi. 10, 12, also in De Gen. contra Man. i. 3.440 [BOOK XI.THE CITY OF GOD.not been made by God, they are strangely deceived, and ravein the incurable madness of impiety. For, though the voices ofthe prophets were silent, the world itself, by its well-orderedchanges and movements, and by the fair appearance of allvisible things, bears a testimony of its own, both that it hasbeen created, and also that it could not have been created saveby God, whose greatness and beauty are unutterable and invisible. As for those who own, indeed, that it was made byGod, and yet ascribe to it not a temporal but only a creationalbeginning, so that in some scarcely intelligible way the worldshould always have existed a created world, they make anassertion which seems to them to defend God from the chargeof arbitrary hastiness, or of suddenly conceiving the idea ofcreating the world as a quite new idea, or of casually changing His will, though He be unchangeable. But I do not seehow this supposition of theirs can stand in other respects, andchiefly in respect of the soul; for if they contend that it isco-eternal with God, they will be quite at a loss to explainwhence there has accrued to it new misery, which through aprevious eternity had not existed. For if they said that itshappiness and misery ceaselessly alternate, they must say,further, that this alternation will continue for ever; whencewill result this absurdity, that, though the soul is calledblessed, it is not so in this, that it foresees its own misery anddisgrace. And yet, if it does not foresee it, and supposes thatit will be neither disgraced nor wretched, but always blessed,then it is blessed because it is deceived; and a more foolishstatement one cannot make. But if their idea is that thesoul's misery has alternated with its bliss during the ages ofthe past eternity, but that now, when once the soul has been.set free, it will return henceforth no more to misery, they arenevertheless of opinion that it has never been truly blessedbefore, but begins at last to enjoy a new and uncertain happiness; that is to say, they must acknowledge that some newthing, and that an important and signal thing, happens to thesoul which never in a whole past eternity happened it before.And if they deny that God's eternal purpose included thisnew experience of the soul, they deny that He is the Author1 The Neo- Platonists.BOOK XI. ] WHY WAS CREATION DELAYED? 441of its blessedness, which is unspeakable impiety. If, on theother hand, they say that the future blessedness of the soul isthe result of a new decree of God, how will they show thatGod is not chargeable with that mutability which displeasesthem? Further, if they acknowledge that it was created intime, but will never perish in time, —that it has, like number,'a beginning but no end, —and that, therefore, having once madetrial of misery, and been delivered from it, it will never againreturn thereto, they will certainly admit that this takes placewithout any violation of the immutable counsel of God. Letthem, then, in like manner believe regarding the world that ittoo could be made in time, and yet that God, in making it,did not alter His eternal design.5. That we ought not to seek to comprehend the infinite ages of time beforethe world, nor the infinite realms ofspace.Next, we must see what reply can be made to those whoagree that God is the Creator of the world, but have difficultiesabout the time of its creation, and what reply, also, they canmake to difficulties we might raise about the place of itscreation. For, as they demand why the world was createdthen and no sooner, we may ask why it was created just herewhere it is, and not elsewhere. For if they imagine infinitespaces of time before the world, during which God could nothave been idle, in like manner they may conceive outside theworld infinite realms of space, in which, if any one says thatthe Omnipotent cannot hold His hand from working, will itnot follow that they must adopt Epicurus' dream of innumerable worlds? with this difference only, that he asserts thatthey are formed and destroyed by the fortuitous movementsof atoms, while they will hold that they are made by God'shand, if they maintain that, throughout the boundless immensityof space, stretching interminably in every direction round theworld, God cannot rest, and that the worlds which they supposeHim to make cannot be destroyed. For here the questionis with those who, with ourselves, believe that God is spiritual,and the Creator of all existences but Himself. As for others,it is a condescension to dispute with them on a religiousquestion, for they have acquired a reputation only among men.1 Number begins at one, but runs on infinitely.442 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XI..who pay divine honours to a number of gods, and havebecome conspicuous among the other philosophers for no otherreason than that, though they are still far from the truth,they are near it in comparison with the rest. While these,then, neither confine in any place, nor limit, nor distribute thedivine substance, but, as is worthy of God, own it to be whollythough spiritually present everywhere, will they perchance saythat this substance is absent from such immense spaces outsidethe world, and is occupied in one only, (and that a very littleone compared with the infinity beyond,) the one, namely, inwhich is the world? I think they will not proceed to thisabsurdity. Since they maintain that there is but one world,of vast material bulk, indeed, yet finite, and in its own determinate position, and that this was made by the working ofGod, let them give the same account of God's resting in theinfinite times before the world as they give of His resting inthe infinite spaces outside of it. And as it does not followthat God set the world in the very spot it occupies and noother by accident rather than by divine reason, although nohuman reason can comprehend why it was so set, and thoughthere was no merit in the spot chosen to give it the precedenceof infinite others, so neither does it follow that we shouldsuppose that God was guided by chance when He created theworld in that and no earlier time, although previous timeshad been running by during an infinite past, and though therewas no difference by which one time could be chosen in preference to another. But if they say that the thoughts ofmen are idle when they conceive infinite places, since thereis no place beside the world, we reply that, by the sameshowing, it is vain to conceive of the past times of God's rest,since there is no time before the world.6. That the world and time had both one beginning, and the one did not anticipate the other.For if eternity and time are rightly distinguished by this,that time does not exist without some movement and transition,while in eternity there is no change, who does not see thatthere could have been no time had not some creature beenmade, which by some motion could give birth to change, thevarious parts of which motion and change, as they cannot beBOOK XI. ] CREATION AND TIME CONTEMPORANEOUS. 443simultaneous, succeed one another, and thus, in these shorteror longer intervals of duration, time would begin? Sincethen, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the Creatorand Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said tohave created the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unlessit be said that prior to the world there was some creature bywhose movement time could pass. And if the sacred andinfallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God createdthe heavens and the earth, in order that it may be understoodthat He had made nothing previously, for if He had madeanything before the rest, this thing would rather be said tohave been made " in the beginning," then assuredly theworld was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.For that which is made in time is made both after and beforesome time, after that which is past, before that which isfuture. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured.But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in theworld's creation change and motion were created, as seemsevident from the order of the first six or seven days. For inthese days the morning and evening are counted, until, on thesixth day, all things which God then made were finished, andon the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimelysignalized. What kind of days these were it is extremelydifficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and howmuch more to say!7. Ofthe nature of the first days, which are said to have had morningand evening, before there was a sun.We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening butby the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun;but the first three days of all were passed without sun, sinceit is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And firstof all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God,we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the lightDay, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was,and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning,is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understandhow it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For eitherit was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper444 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK XI.parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from thespot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under thename of light the holy city was signified, composed of holyangels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says,"Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven; "" 1and in another place, " For ye are all the children of the light,and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor ofdarkness." Yet in some respects we may appropriately speakof a morning and evening of this day also . For the knowledgeof the creature is, in comparison of the knowledge of theCreator, but a twilight; and so it dawns and breaks intomorning when the creature is drawn to the praise and loveof the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator is notforsaken through love of the creature. In fine, Scripture,when it would recount those days in order, never mentionsthe word night. It never says, "Night was," but "The eveningand the morning were the first day." So of the second and the rest. And, indeed, the knowledge of created things contemplated by themselves is, so to speak, more colourless thanwhen they are seen in the wisdom of God, as in the art bywhich they were made. Therefore evening is a more suitablefigure than night; and yet, as I said, morning returns whenthe creature returns to the praise and love of the Creator.When it does so in the knowledge of itself, that is the firstday; when in the knowledge of the firmament, which is thename given to the sky between the waters above and thosebeneath, that is the second day; when in the knowledge ofthe earth, and the sea, and all things that grow out of theearth, that is the third day; when in the knowledge of thegreater and less luminaries, and all the stars, that is the fourthday; when in the knowledge of all animals that swim in thewaters and that fly in the air, that is the fifth day; when inthe knowledge of all animals that live on the earth, and ofman himself, that is the sixth day.³8. What we are to understand of God's resting on the seventh day, afterthe six days' work.When it is said that God rested on the seventh day fromall His works, and hallowed it, we are not to conceive of this1 Gal. iv. 26. 21 Thess. v. 5. 3 Comp. de Gen. ad lit. i. and iv.BOOK XI. ] OF THE CREATION OF ANGELS. 445in a childish fashion, as if work were a toil to God, who " spakeand it was done," spake by the spiritual and eternal, notaudible and transitory word. But God's rest signifies therest of those who rest in God, as the joy of a house meansthe joy of those in the house who rejoice, though not thehouse, but something else, causes the joy. How much moreintelligible is such phraseology, then, if the house itself, by itsown beauty, makes the inhabitants joyful! For in this case.we not only call it joyful by that figure of speech in whichthe thing containing is used for the thing contained (as whenwe say, "The theatres applaud," " The meadows low," meaningthat the men in the one applaud, and the oxen in the otherlow), but also by that figure in which the cause is spoken ofas if it were the effect, as when a letter is said to be joyful,because it makes its readers so. Most appropriately, therefore,the sacred narrative states that God rested, meaning therebythat those rest who are in Him, and whom He makes to rest.And this the prophetic narrative promises also to the men towhom it speaks, and for whom it was written, that they themselves, after those good works which God does in and bythem, if they have managed by faith to get near to God inthis life, shall enjoy in Him eternal rest.This was prefigured to the ancient people of God by the rest enjoined intheir sabbath law, of which, in its own place, I shall speakmore at large.9. Whatthe Scriptures teach us to believe concerning the creation of the angels.At present, since I have undertaken to treat of the originof the holy city, and first of the holy angels, who constitutea large part of this city, and indeed the more blessed part,since they have never been expatriated, I will give myself tothe task of explaining, by God's help, and as far as seemssuitable, the Scriptures which relate to this point. WhereScripture speaks of the world's creation, it is not plainly saidwhether or when the angels were created; but if mention ofthem is made, it is implicitly under the name of " heaven,"when it is said, " In the beginning God created the heavensand the earth," or perhaps rather under the name of " light,"of which presently. But that they were wholly omitted, I446 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XI. .am unable to believe, because it is written that God on theseventh day rested from all His works which He made; andthis very book itself begins, " In the beginning God createdthe heavens and the earth," so that before heaven and earthGod seems to have made nothing. Since, therefore, He beganwith the heavens and the earth, and the earth itself, as Scripture adds, was at first invisible and formless, light not beingas yet made, and darkness covering the face of the deep (thatis to say, covering an undefined chaos of earth and sea, forwhere light is not, darkness must needs be), -and then whenall things, which are recorded to have been completed in sixdays, were created and arranged, how should the angels beomitted, as if they were not among the works of God, fromwhich on the seventh day He rested? Yet, though the factthat the angels are the work of God is not omitted here, it isindeed not explicitly mentioned; but elsewhere Holy Scripture asserts it in the clearest manner. For in the Hymn ofthe Three Children in the Furnace it was said, " O all ye worksof the Lord, bless ye the Lord; " 1 and among these worksmentioned afterwards in detail, the angels are named. Andin the psalm it is said, " Praise ye the Lord from the heavens,praise Him in the heights. Praise ye Him, all His angels;praise ye Him, all His hosts. Praise ye Him, sun and moon;praise Him, all ye stars of light. Praise Him, ye heaven ofheavens; and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them2praise the name of the Lord; for He commanded, and theywere created." Here the angels are most expressly and bydivine authority said to have been made by God, for of themamong the other heavenly things it is said, " He commanded,and they were created." Who, then, will be bold enough tosuggest that the angels were made after the six days' creation?If any one is so foolish, his folly is disposed of by a scriptureof like authority, where God says, " When the stars weremade, the angels praised me with a loud voice." " The angelstherefore existed before the stars; and the stars were madethe fourth day. Shall we then say that they were made thethird day? Far from it; for we know what was madethat day. The earth was separated from the water, and each1 Ver. 35. 2 Ps. cxlviii. 1-5. 3 Job xxxviii. 7.BOOK XI. ] OF THE TRINITY. 447element took its own distinct form, and the earth produced allthat grows on it. On the second day, then? Not even onthis; for on it the firmament was made between the watersabove and beneath, and was called " Heaven," in which firmament the stars were made on the fourth day. There is noquestion, then, that ifthe angels are included in the works ofGod during these six days, they are that light which wascalled " Day," and whose unity Scripture signalizes by callingthat day not the " first day," but " one day." 1 For the secondday, the third, and the rest are not other days; but the same" one " day is repeated to complete the number six or seven,so that there should be knowledge both of God's works andof His rest. For when God said, " Let there be light, andthere was light," if we are justified in understanding in thislight the creation of the angels, then certainly they werecreated partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, andwhom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they,being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called " Day," in participation ofthat unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God,by whom both themselves and all else were made. "The trueLight, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,"-this Light lighteth also every pure angel, that he may belight not in himself, but in God; from whom if an angelturn away, he becomes impure, as are all those who are calledunclean spirits, and are no longer light in the Lord, but darknessin themselves, being deprived of the participation of Lighteternal. For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of goodhas received the name " evil."810. Ofthe simple and unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, oneGod, in whom substance and quality are identical.There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, andtherefore alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good1 Vives here notes that the Greek theologians and Jerome held, with Plato, thatspiritual creatures were made first, and used by God in the creation of thingsmaterial. The Latin theologians and Basil held that God made all things atonce.2 John i. 9.3 Mali enim nulla natura est: sed amissio boni, mali nomen accepit.448 [ BOOK XI.THE CITY OF GOD.ແhave all others been created, but not simple, and therefore notunchangeable. Created," I say,—that is, made, not begotten.For that which is begotten of the simple Good is simple asitself, and the same as itself. These two we call the Fatherand the Son; and both together with the Holy Spirit are oneGod; and to this Spirit the epithet Holy is in Scripture, as itwere, appropriated. And He is another than the Father andthe Son, for He is neither the Father nor the Son. I sayanother," not " another thing," because He is equally withthem the simple Good, unchangeable and co- eternal. Andthis Trinity is one God; and none the less simple because aTrinity. For we do not say that the nature of the good issimple, because the Father alone possesses it, or the Son alone,or the Holy Ghost alone; nor do we say, with the Sabellianheretics, that it is only nominally a Trinity, and has no realdistinction of persons; but we say it is simple, because it iswhat it has, with the exception of the relation of the personsto one another. For, in regard to this relation, it is true thatthe Father has a Son, and yet is not Himself the Son; andthe Son has a Father, and is not Himself the Father. But,as regards Himself, irrespective of relation to the other, eachis what He has; thus, He is in Himself living, for He haslife, and is Himself the Life which He has.It is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity iscalled simple, because it has not anything which it can lose,and because it is not one thing and its contents another, as acup and the liquor, or a body and its colour, or the air andthe light or heat of it, or a mind and its wisdom. For noneof these is what it has: the cup is not liquor, nor the bodycolour, nor the air light and heat, nor the mind wisdom. Andhence they can be deprived of what they have, and can beturned or changed into other qualities and states, so that thecup may be emptied of the liquid of which it is full, the bodybe discoloured, the air darken, the mind grow silly. The incorruptible body which is promised to the saints in the resurrection cannot, indeed, lose its quality of incorruption, butthe bodily substance and the quality of incorruption are notthe same thing. For the quality of incorruption residesentire in each several part, not greater in one and less inBOOK XI. ] SIMPLICITY OF THE TRINITY. 449another; for no part is more incorruptible than another. Thebody, indeed, is itself greater in whole than in part; and onepart of it is larger, another smaller, yet is not the larger moreincorruptible than the smaller. The body, then, which is notin each of its parts a whole body, is one thing; incorruptibility, which is throughout complete, is another thing;-forevery part of the incorruptible body, however unequal to therest otherwise, is equally incorrupt. For the hand, e.g., isnot more incorrupt than the finger because it is larger thanthe finger; so, though finger and hand are unequal, their incorruptibility is equal. Thus, although incorruptibility isinseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance ofthe body is one thing, the quality of incorruption another.And therefore the body is not what it has. The soul itself,too, though it be always wise (as it will be eternally when itis redeemed), will be so by participating in the unchangeablewisdom, which it is not; for though the air be never robbedof the light that is shed abroad in it, it is not on that accountthe same thing as the light. I do not mean that the soul isair, as has been supposed by some who could not conceive aspiritual nature; but, with much dissimilarity, the two thingshave a kind of likeness, which makes it suitable to say thatthe immaterial soul is illumined with the immaterial light ofthe simple wisdom of God, as the material air is irradiatedwith material light, and that, as the air, when deprived ofthis light, grows dark, (for material darkness is nothing elsethan air wanting light,2) so the soul, deprived of the light ofwisdom, grows dark.According to this, then, those things which are essentiallyand truly divine are called simple, because in them qualityand substance are identical, and because they are divine, orwise, or blessed in themselves, and without extraneous supplement. In Holy Scripture, it is true, the Spirit of wisdom is1 Plutarch (De Plac. Phil. i. 3, and iv. 3) tells us that this opinion was heldby Anaximenes of Miletus, the followers of Anaxagoras, and many of the Stoics.Diogenes the Cynic, as well as Diogenes of Apollonia, seems to have adopted thesame opinion. See Zeller's Stoics, pp. 121 and 199.2 "Ubi lux non est, tenebræ sunt, non quia aliquid sunt tenebræ, sed ipsalucis absentia tenebræ dicuntur. "—Aug. De Gen. contra Man. 7.VOL. I. 2 F450 THE [ BOOK XI.CITY OF GOD.called " manifold "1 because it contains many things in it; butwhat it contains it also is, and it being one is all these things.For neither are there many wisdoms, but one, in which areuntold and infinite treasures of things intellectual, whereinare all invisible and unchangeable reasons of things visibleand changeable which were created by it.2 For God madenothing unwittingly; not even a human workman can be saidto do so. But if He knew all that He made, He made onlythose things which He had known. Whence flows a verystriking but true conclusion, that this world could not beknown to us unless it existed, but could not have existedunless it had been known to God.11. Whether the angels that fell partook of the blessedness which the holyangels have always enjoyed from the time oftheir creation.And since these things are so, those spirits whom we callangels were never at any time or in any way darkness, but, assoon as they were made, were made light; yet they were notso created in order that they might exist and live in any waywhatever, but were enlightened that they might live wiselyand blessedly. Some of them, having turned away from thislight, have not won this wise and blessed life, which is certainly eternal, and accompanied with the sure confidence of itseternity; but they have still the life of reason, though darkened with folly, and this they cannot lose, even if they would.But who can determine to what extent they were partakersof that wisdom before they fell? And how shall we say thatthey participated in it equally with those who through it aretruly and fully blessed, resting in a true certainty of eternalfelicity? For if they had equally participated in this trueknowledge, then the evil angels would have remained eternallyblessed equally with the good, because they were equally expectant of it. For, though a life be never so long, it cannotbe truly called eternal if it is destined to have an end; forit is called life inasmuch as it is lived, but eternal because ithas no end. Wherefore, although everything eternal is nottherefore blessed (for hell-fire is eternal) , yet if no life can be1 Wisdom vii. 22.The strongly Platonic tinge of this language is perhaps best preserved in abare literal translation.BOOK XI. ] BLESSEDNESS AND PERSEVERANCE. 451truly and perfectly blessed except it be eternal, the life ofthese angels was not blessed, for it was doomed to end, andtherefore not eternal, whether they knew it or not. In theone case fear, in the other ignorance, prevented them frombeing blessed. And even if their ignorance was not so greatas to breed in them a wholly false expectation, but left themwavering in uncertainty whether their good would be eternalor would some time terminate, this very doubt concerning sogrand a destiny was incompatible with the plenitude ofblessedness which we believe the holy angels enjoyed. Forwe do not so narrow and restrict the application of the term"blessedness " as to apply it to God only,' though doubtlessHe is so truly blessed that greater blessedness cannot be; and,in comparison of His blessedness, what is that of the angels,though, according to their capacity, they be perfectly blessed?12. A comparison ofthe blessedness ofthe righteous, who have not yet received thedivine reward, with that ofour first parents in paradise.And the angels are not the only members of the rationaland intellectual creation whom we call blessed. For whowill take upon him to deny that those first men in Paradisewere blessed previously to sin, although they were uncertainhow long their blessedness was to last, and whether it wouldbe eternal (and eternal it would have been had they notsinned), who, I say, will do so, seeing that even now we notunbecomingly call those blessed whom we see leading arighteous and holy life in hope of immortality, who have noharrowing remorse of conscience, but obtain readily divine remission of the sins of their present infirmity? These, thoughthey are certain that they shall be rewarded if they persevere,are not certain that they will persevere. For what man canknow that he will persevere to the end in the exercise andincrease of grace, unless he has been certified by some revelation from Him who, in His just and secret judgment, whileHe deceives none, informs few regarding this matter? Ac1 Vives remarks that the ancients defined blessedness as an absolutely perfectstate in all good, peculiar to God. Perhaps Augustine had a reminiscence ofthe remarkable discussion in the Tusc. Disp. lib. v. , and the definition " Nequeulla alia huic verbo, quum beatum dicimus, subjecta notio est, nisi, secretismalis omnibus, cumulata bonorum complexio. "452 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK XI.cordingly, so far as present comfort goes, the first man inParadise was more blessed than any just man in this insecurestate; but as regards the hope of future good, every man whonot merely supposes, but certainly knows that he shall eternally enjoy the most high God in the company of angels,and beyond the reach of ill, —this man, no matter what bodilytorments afflict him, is more blessed than was he who, evenin that great felicity of Paradise, was uncertain of his fate.¹13. Whether all the angels were so created in one common state offelicity, thatthose who fell were not aware that they would fall, and that those whostood received assurance of their own perseverance after the ruin ofthefallen.From all this, it will readily occur to any one that theblessedness which an intelligent being desires as its legitimate object results from a combination of these two things,namely, that it uninterruptedly enjoy the unchangeable good,which is God; and that it be delivered from all dubiety, andknow certainly that it shall eternally abide in the same enjoyment. That it is so with the angels of light we piouslybelieve; but that the fallen angels, who by their own defaultlost that light, did not enjoy this blessedness even before theysinned, reason bids us conclude. Yet if their life was of anyduration before they fell, we must allow them a blessednessof some kind, though not that which is accompanied withforesight. Or, if it seems hard to believe that, when the angelswere created, some were created in ignorance either of theirperseverance or their fall, while others were most certainlyassured of the eternity of their felicity,—if it is hard to believethat they were not all from the beginning on an equal footing,until these who are now evil did of their own will fall awayfrom the light of goodness, certainly it is much harder tobelieve that the holy angels are now uncertain of their eternalblessedness, and do not know regarding themselves as muchas we have been able to gather regarding them from the HolyScriptures. For what catholic Christian does not know thatno new devil will ever arise among the good angels, as heknows that this present devil will never again return into theWith this chapter compare the books De Dono Persever. and De Correp.et Gratia.BOOK XI. ] ORIGINAL STATE OF THE ANGELS. 453fellowship of the good? For the truth in the gospel promises to the saints and the faithful that they will be equal tothe angels of God; and it is also promised them that theywill "go away into life eternal. ” ¹ But if we are certain that"(And be112we shall never lapse from eternal felicity, while they are notcertain, then we shall not be their equals, but their superiors.But as the truth never deceives, and as we shall be theirequals, they must be certain of their blessedness.cause the evil angels could not be certain of that, since theirblessedness was destined to come to an end, it follows eitherthat the angels were unequal, or that, if equal, the good angelswere assured of the eternity of their blessedness after theperdition of the others; unless, possibly, some one may saythat the words of the Lord about the devil, He was amurderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,"are to be understood as if he was not only a murderer fromthe beginning of the human race, when man, whom he couldkill by his deceit, was made, but also that he did not abidein the truth from the time of his own creation, and wasaccordingly never blessed with the holy angels, but refusedto submit to his Creator, and proudly exulted as if in aprivate lordship of his own, and was thus deceived and deceiving. For the dominion of the Almighty cannot be eluded;and he who will not piously submit himself to things as theyare, proudly feigns, and mocks himself with a state of things.that does not exist; so that what the blessed Apostle Johnsays thus becomes intelligible: " The devil sinneth from thebeginning," that is, from the time he was created he refused.righteousness which none but a will piously subject to Godcan enjoy. Whoever adopts this opinion at least disagreeswith those heretics the Manichees, and with any other pestilential sect that may suppose that the devil has derived fromsome adverse evil principle a nature proper to himself.These persons are so befooled by error, that, although theyacknowledge with ourselves the authority of the gospels,they do not notice that the Lord did not say, " The devil wasnaturally a stranger to the truth," but " The devil abode notin the truth," by which He meant us to understand that he1 Matt. xxv. 46. 2 John viii. 44. 31 John iii. 8.454 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XI. .had fallen from the truth, in which, if he had abode, he wouldhave become a partaker of it, and have remained in blessedness along with the holy angels.¹14. An explanation of what is said of the devil, that he did not abide in thetruth, because the truth was not in him.Moreover, as if we had been inquiring why the devil didnot abide in the truth, our Lord subjoins the reason, saying,"because the truth is not in him." Now, it would be in himhad he abode in it. But the phraseology is unusual. For,as the words stand, " He abode not in the truth, because thetruth is not in him," it seems as if the truth's not being inhim were the cause of his not abiding in it; whereas his notabiding in the truth is rather the cause of its not being inhim. The same form of speech is found in the psalm: " Ihave called upon Thee, for Thou hast heard me, O God," ²where we should expect it to be said, Thou hast heard me,O God, for I have called upon Thee. But when he had said," I have called," then, as if some one were seeking proof ofthis, he demonstrates the effectual earnestness of his prayerby the effect of God's hearing it; as if he had said, The proofthat I have prayed is that Thou hast heard me.15. How we are to understand the words, " The devil sinneth from thebeginning.'As for what John says about the devil, " The devil sinnethfrom the beginning," they who suppose it is meant herebythat the devil was made with a sinful nature, misunderstandit; for if sin be natural, it is not sin at all. And how dothey answer the prophetic proofs, either what Isaiah sayswhen he represents the devil under the person of the king ofBabylon, " How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning! " or what Ezekiel says, " Thou hast been in Eden, thegarden of God; every precious stone was thy covering,"where it is meant that he was some time without sin; fora little after it is still more explicitly said, " Thou wastperfect in thy ways?" And if these passages cannot well beotherwise interpreted, we must understand by this one also,"He abode not in the truth," that he was once in the truth,1 Cf. Gen. ad Lit. xi. 27 et seqq. 2 Ps. xvii. 6.The Manichæans. 5 Isa. xiv. 12.3 1 John iii. 8.6 Ezek. xxviii. 13." 6BOOK XI. ] RELATIVE VALUE OF CREATURES. 455"but did not remain in it. And from this passage, " The devilsinneth from the beginning," it is not to be supposed that hesinned from the beginning of his created existence, but fromthe beginning of his sin, when by his pride he had oncecommenced to sin. There is a passage, too, in the Book ofJob, of which the devil is the subject: " This is the beginningof the creation of God, which He made to be a sport to Hisangelss," which agrees with the psalm, where it is said,There is that dragon which Thou hast made to be a sporttherein. " But these passages are not to lead us to supposethat the devil was originally created to be the sport of theangels, but that he was doomed to this punishment after hissin. His beginning, then, is the handiwork of God; for thereis no nature, even among the least, and lowest, and last of thebeasts, which was not the work of Him from whom has proceeded all measure, all form, all order, without which nothingcan be planned or conceived. How much more, then, is thisangelic nature, which surpasses in dignity all else that He hasmade, the handiwork of the Most High!16. Ofthe ranks and differences of the creatures, estimated by their utility, oraccording to the natural gradations ofbeing.For, among those beings which exist, and which are not ofGod the Creator's essence, those which have life are rankedabove those which have none; those that have the power ofgeneration, or even of desiring, above those which want thisfaculty. And, among things that have life, the sentient arehigher than those which have no sensation, as animals areranked above trees. And, among the sentient, the intelligentare above those that have not intelligence, -men, e.g., abovecattle. And, among the intelligent, the immortal, such as theangels, above the mortal, such as men. These are the gradations according to the order of nature; but according to theutility each man finds in a thing, there are various standardsof value, so that it comes to pass that we prefer some thingsthat have no sensation to some sentient beings. And so strongis this preference, that, had we the power, we would abolish.the latter from nature altogether, whether in ignorance of theplace they hold in nature, or, though we know it, sacrificing1 Job xl. 14 ( LXX. ). 2 Ps. civ. 26.456 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XI. . 'them to our own convenience. Who, e.g., would not ratherhave bread in his house than mice, gold than fleas? Butthere is little to wonder at in this, seeing that even whenvalued by men themselves (whose nature is certainly of thehighest dignity), more is often given for a horse than for aslave, for a jewel than for a maid. Thus the reason of onecontemplating nature prompts very different judgments fromthose dictated by the necessity of the needy, or the desire ofthe voluptuous; for the former considers what value a thingin itself has in the scale of creation, while necessity considershow it meets its need; reason looks for what the mental lightwill judge to be true, while pleasure looks for what pleasantlytitillates the bodily sense. But of such consequence inrational natures is the weight, so to speak, of will and of love,that though in the order of nature angels rank above men, yet,by the scale of justice, good men are of greater value thanbad angels.17. That theflaw ofwickedness is not nature, but contrary to nature, and hasits origin, not in the Creator, but in the will.It is with reference to the nature, then, and not to thewickedness of the devil, that we are to understand thesewords, " This is the beginning of God's handiwork; " ¹ for,without doubt, wickedness can be a flaw or vice only wherethe nature previously was not vitiated. Vice, too, is so contrary to nature, that it cannot but damage it. And thereforedeparture from God would be no vice, unless in a naturewhose property it was to abide with God. So that even thewicked will is a strong proof of the goodness of the nature.But God, as He is the supremely good Creator of goodnatures, so is He of evil wills the most just Ruler; so that,while they make an ill use of good natures, He makes a gooduse even of evil wills. Accordingly, He caused the devil (goodby God's creation, wicked by his own will) to be cast downfrom his high position, and to become the mockery of Hisangels, that is, He caused his temptations to benefit thosewhom he wishes to injure by them. And because God, when' Job. xl. 14 (LXX. ).It must be kept in view that " vice " has, in this passage, the meaning of sinful blemish.BOOK XI. ] . THE ELOQUENCE OF HISTORY. 457He created him, was certainly not ignorant of his futuremalignity, and foresaw the good which He Himself wouldbring out of his evil, therefore says the psalm, " This leviathanwhom Thou hast made to be a sport therein," that we may seethat, even while God in His goodness created him good, Heyet had already foreseen and arranged how He would makeuse of him when he became wicked.18. Ofthe beauty ofthe universe, which becomes, by God's ordinance, morebrilliant by the opposition of contraries.For God would never have created any, I do not say angel,but even man, whose future wickedness He foreknew, unlessHe had equally known to what uses in behalf of the goodHe could turn him, thus embellishing the course of theages, as it were an exquisite poem set off with antitheses.For what are called antitheses are among the most elegantof the ornaments of speech. They might be called in Latin" oppositions," or, to speak more accurately, " contrapositions;"but this word is not in common use among us, though theLatin, and indeed the languages of all nations, avail themselves of the same ornaments of style. In the Second Epistleto the Corinthians the Apostle Paul also makes a graceful useof antithesis, in that place where he says, " By the armour ofrighteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honourand dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers,and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying,and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; ashaving nothing, and yet possessing all things. " As, then,these oppositions of contraries lend beauty to the language,so the beauty of the course of this world is achieved by theopposition of contraries, arranged, as it were, by an eloquencenot of words, but of things. This is quite plainly stated inthe Book of Ecclesiasticus, in this way: " Good is set againstevil, and life against death: so is the sinner against the godly.So look upon all the works of the Most High, and these aretwo and two, one against another."1 Ps. civ. 26.2 Quintilian uses it commonly in the sense of antithesis.3 2 Cor. vi. 7-10. 4 Ecclus. xxxiii. 15.458 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK XI.19. What, seemingly, we are to understand by the words, " God divided thelight from the darkness. "Accordingly, though the obscurity of the divine word has certainly this advantage, that it causes many opinions about thetruth to be started and discussed, each reader seeing some freshmeaning in it, yet, whatever is said to be meant by an obscurepassage should be either confirmed by the testimony of obviousfacts, or should be asserted in other and less ambiguous texts.This obscurity is beneficial, whether the sense of the author is atlast reached after the discussion of many other interpretations,or whether, though that sense remain concealed, other truths arebrought out by the discussion of the obscurity. To me it doesnot seem incongruous with the working of God, if we understand that the angels were created when that first light wasmade, and that a separation was made between the holy and theunclean angels, when, as is said, " God divided the light fromthe darkness; and God called the light Day, and the darknessHe called Night." For He alone could make this discrimination, who was able also, before they fell, to foreknow that theywould fall, and that, being deprived of the light of truth, theywould abide in the darkness of pride. For, so far as regardsthe day and night, with which we are familiar, He commanded those luminaries of heaven that are obvious to oursenses to divide between the light and the darkness. Letthere be," He says, " lights in the firmament of the heaven, todivide the day from the night;" and shortly after He says,"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rulethe day, and the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also.And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to givelight upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over thenight, and to divide the light from the darkness." Butbetween that light, which is the holy company of the angelsspiritually radiant with the illumination of the truth, andthat opposing darkness, which is the noisome foulness of thespiritual condition of those angels who are turned away fromthe light of righteousness, only He Himself could divide, fromwhom their wickedness (not of nature, but of will), while yetit was future, could not be hidden or uncertain.1 Gen. i. 14-18.BOOK XI. ]GOD'S APPROVAL OF CREATION. 45920. Ofthe words which follow the separation of light and darkness, " And Godsaw the light that it was good."Then, we must not pass from this passage of Scripturewithout noticing that when God said, " Let there be light,and there was light," it was immediately added, “ And Godsaw the light that it was good." No such expression followedthe statement that He separated the light from the darkness,and called the light Day and the darkness Night, lest the sealof His approval might seem to be set on such darkness, aswell as on the light. For when the darkness was not subjectof disapprobation, as when it was divided by the heavenlybodies from this light which our eyes discern, the statementthat God saw that it was good is inserted, not before, butafter the division is recorded. "And God set them," so runsthe passage, " in the firmament of the heaven, to give lightupon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night,and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw thatit was good." For He approved of both, because both weresinless. But where God said, " Let there be light, and therewas light; and God saw the light that it was good;" andthe narrative goes on, " and God divided the light from thedarkness and God called the light Day, and the darkness Hecalled Night," there was not in this place subjoined the statement, " And God saw that it was good," lest both should bedesignated good, while one of them was evil, not by nature,but by its own fault. And therefore, in this case, the lightalone received the approbation of the Creator, while the angelicdarkness, though it had been ordained, was yet not approved.21. Of God's eternal and unchangeable knowledge and will, whereby all He hasmade pleased Him in the eternal design as well as in the actual result.For what else is to be understood by that invariable refrain,"And God saw that it was good," than the approval of thework in its design, which is the wisdom of God? For certainly God did not in the actual achievement of the workfirst learn that it was good, but, on the contrary, nothingwould have been made had it not been first known by Him.While, therefore, He sees that that is good which, had He notseen it before it was made, would never have been made, it isplain that He is not discovering, but teaching that it is good.460 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XI. .Plato, indeed, was bold enough to say that, when the universewas completed, God was, as it were, elated with joy.¹ AndPlato was not so foolish as to mean by this that God wasrendered more blessed by the novelty of His creation; but hewished thus to indicate that the work now completed met withits Maker's approval, as it had while yet in design. It is notas if the knowledge of God were of various kinds, knowingin different ways things which as yet are not, things whichare, and things which have been. For not in our fashiondoes He look forward to what is future, nor at what is present,nor back upon what is past; but in a manner quite differentand far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. ForHe does not pass from this to that by transition of thought,but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; sothat of those things which emerge in time, the future, indeed,are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longerare; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stableand eternal presence. Neither does He see in one fashion bythe eye, in another by the mind, for He is not composed ofmind and body; nor does His present knowledge differ fromthat which it ever was or shall be, for those variations of time,past, present, and future, though they alter our knowledge, donot affect His, " with whom is no variableness, neither shadowof turning." Neither is there any growth from thought tothought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual visionall things which He knows are at once embraced. For aswithout any movement that time can measure, He Himselfmoves all temporal things, so He knows all times with aknowledge that time cannot measure. And therefore Hesaw that what He had made was good, when He saw that itwas good to make it. And when He saw it made, He hadnot on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He madewhat He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect1 The reference is to the Timæus, p. 37 C. , where he says, " When the parentCreator perceived this created image of the eternal gods in life and motion, Hewas delighted, and in His joy considered how He might make it still liker its model. "2 Jas. i. 17.BOOK XI. ] GOOD IN ALL CREATED THINGS. 461worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as toreceive no addition from His finished works. Wherefore, ifthe only object had been to inform us who made the light, ithad been enough to say, " God made the light;" and if furtherinformation regarding the means by which it was made hadbeen intended, it would have sufficed to say, " And God said,Let there be light, and there was light," that we might knownot only that God had made the world, but also that He hadmade it by the word. But because it was right that threeleading truths regarding the creature be intimated to us, viz. ,who made it, by what means, and why, it is written, " Godsaid, Let there be light, and there was light. And God sawthe light that it was good. " If, then, we ask who made it,it was " God." If, by what means, He said " Let it be," andit was. If we ask, why He made it, " it was good." Neitheris there any author more excellent than God, nor any skillmore efficacious than the word of God, nor any cause betterthan that good might be created by the good God. This alsoPlato has assigned as the most sufficient reason for the creationof the world, that good works might be made by a good God;¹whether he read this passage, or, perhaps, was informed ofthese things by those who had read them, or, by his quicksighted genius, penetrated to things spiritual and invisiblethrough the things that are created, or was instructed regarding them by those who had discerned them.22. Ofthose who do not approve of certain things which are a part of this goodcreation ofa good Creator, and who think that there is some natural evil.This cause, however, of a good creation, namely, the goodness of God, this cause, I say, so just and fit, which, whenpiously and carefully weighed, terminates all the controversiesof those who inquire into the origin of the world, has not beenrecognised by some heretics,2 because there are, forsooth, manythings, such as fire, frost, wild beasts, and so forth, which donot suit but injure this thin- blooded and frail mortality of our1 The passage referred to is in the Timæus, p. 29 D.: " Let us say what wasthe cause of the Creator's forming this universe. He was good; and in thegood no envy is ever generated about anything whatever. Therefore, beingfree from envy, He desired that all things should, as much as possible, resemble Himself. "2 The Manichæans, to wit.462 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XI. .flesh, which is at present under just punishment. They donot consider how admirable these things are in their ownplaces, how excellent in their own natures, how beautifullyadjusted to the rest of creation, and how much grace theycontribute to the universe by their own contributions as to acommonwealth; and how serviceable they are even to ourselves, if we use them with a knowledge of their fit adaptations, so that even poisons, which are destructive when usedinjudiciously, become wholesome and medicinal when usedin conformity with their qualities and design; just as, on theother hand, those things which give us pleasure, such as food,drink, and the light of the sun, are found to be hurtful whenimmoderately or unseasonably used. And thus divine providence admonishes us not foolishly to vituperate things, but toinvestigate their utility with care; and, where our mentalcapacity or infirmity is at fault, to believe that there is autility, though hidden, as we have experienced that there wereother things which we all but failed to discover. For thisconcealment of the use of things is itself either an exercise ofour humility or a levelling of our pride; for no nature at allis evil, and this is a name for nothing but the want of good.But from things earthly to things heavenly, from the visibleto the invisible, there are some things better than others; andfor this purpose are they unequal, in order that they mightall exist. Now God is in such sort a great worker in greatthings, that He is not less in little things, for these littlethings are to be measured not by their own greatness (whichdoes not exist) , but by the wisdom of their Designer; as, inthe visible appearance of a man, if one eyebrow be shaved off,how nearly nothing is taken from the body, but how muchfrom the beauty!-for that is not constituted by bulk, but bythe proportion and arrangement of the members. But wedo not greatly wonder that persons, who suppose that someevil nature has been generated and propagated by a kind ofopposing principle proper to it, refuse to admit that the causeof the creation was this, that the good God produced a goodcreation. For they believe that He was driven to this enterprise of creation by the urgent necessity of repulsing the evilthat warred against Him, and that He mixed His good natureBOOK XI. ] ORIGEN'S ERROR REGARDING CREATION. 463with the evil for the sake of restraining and conquering it;and that this nature of His, being thus shamefully polluted,and most cruelly oppressed and held captive, He labours tocleanse and deliver it, and with all His pains does not whollysucceed; but such part of it as could not be cleansed fromthat defilement is to serve as a prison and chain of the conquered and incarcerated enemy. The Manichæans would notdrivel, or rather, rave in such a style as this, if they believedthe nature of God to be, as it is, unchangeable and absolutelyincorruptible, and subject to no injury; and if, moreover, theyheld in Christian sobriety, that the soul which has shownitself capable of being altered for the worse by its own will,and of being corrupted by sin, and so, of being deprived of thelight of eternal truth,—that this soul, I say, is not a part ofGod, nor of the same nature as God, but is created by Him,and is far different from its Creator.23. Ofthe error in which the doctrine of Origen is involved.But it is much more surprising that some even of thosewho, with ourselves, believe that there is one only source ofall things, and that no nature which is not divine can existunless originated by that Creator, have yet refused to acceptwith a good and simple faith this so good and simple a reasonof the world's creation, that a good God made it good; andthat the things created, being different from God, were inferiorto Him, and yet were good, being created by none other thanHe. But they say that souls, though not, indeed, parts of God,but created by Him, sinned by abandoning God; that, in proportion to their various sins, they merited different degrees ofdebasement from heaven to earth, and diverse bodies as prisonhouses; and that this is the world, and this the cause of itscreation, not the production of good things, but the restrainingof evil. Origen is justly blamed for holding this opinion. Forin the books which he entitles Teρì åрxŵv, that is, of origins,this is his sentiment, this his utterance. And I cannot sufficiently express my astonishment, that a man so erudite andwell versed in ecclesiastical literature, should not have observed,in the first place, how opposed this is to the meaning of thisauthoritative Scripture, which, in recounting all the works of464 THE [BOOK XI.CITY OF GOD.God, regularly adds, " And God saw that it was good;" and,when all were completed, inserts the words, " And God saweverything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good." ¹Was it not obviously meant to be understood that there wasno other cause of the world's creation than that good creaturesshould be made by a good God? In this creation, had no onesinned, the world would have been filled and beautified withnatures good without exception; and though there is sin, allthings are not therefore full of sin, for the great majority ofthe heavenly inhabitants preserve their nature's integrity.And the sinful will, though it violated the order of its ownnature, did not on that account escape the laws of God, whojustly orders all things for good. For as the beauty of apicture is increased by well-managed shadows, so, to the eyethat has skill to discern it, the universe is beautified even bysinners, though, considered by themselves, their deformity isa sad blemish.In the second place, Origen, and all who think with him,ought to have seen that if it were the true opinion that theworld was created in order that souls might, for their sins, beaccommodated with bodies in which they should be shut upas in houses of correction, the more venial sinners receivinglighter and more ethereal bodies, while the grosser and graversinners received bodies more crass and grovelling, then itwould follow that the devils, who are deepest in wickedness,ought, rather than even wicked men, to have earthly bodies, sincethese are the grossest and least ethereal of all. But in pointof fact, that we might see that the deserts of souls are not tobe estimated by the qualities of bodies, the wickedest devilpossesses an ethereal body, while man, wicked, it is true, butwith a wickedness small and venial in comparison with his,received even before his sin a body of clay. And what morefoolish assertion can be advanced than that God, by this sun ofours, did not design to benefit the material creation, or lendlustre to its loveliness, and therefore created one single sunfor this single world, but that it so happened that one soulonly had so sinned as to deserve to be enclosed in such abody as it is? On this principle, if it had chanced that not1 Gen. i. 31.BOOK XI. ] TRINITY REVEALED IN CREATION. 465one, but two, yea, or ten, or a hundred had sinned similarly,and with a like degree of guilt, then this world would haveone hundred suns. And that such is not the case, is due notto the considerate foresight of the Creator, contriving thesafety and beauty of things material, but rather to the factthat so fine a quality of sinning was hit upon by only onesoul, so that it alone has merited such a body. Manifestlypersons holding such opinions should aim at confining, notsouls of which they know not what they say, but themselves,lest they fall, and deservedly, far indeed from the truth. Andas to these three answers which I formerly recommended whenin the case of any creature the questions are put, Who madeit? By what means? Why? that it should be replied, God, Bythe Word, Because it was good,-as to these three answers, itis very questionable whether the Trinity itself is thus mystically indicated, that is, the Father, the Son, and the HolyGhost, or whether there is some good reason for this acceptation in this passage of Scripture, this, I say, is questionable,and one can't be expected to explain everything in one volume.24. Ofthe divine Trinity, and the indications of its presence scattered everywhere among its works.1We believe, we maintain, we faithfully preach, that theFather begat the Word, that is, Wisdom, by which all thingswere made, the only-begotten Son, one as the Father is one,eternal as the Father is eternal, and, equally with the Father,supremely good; and that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit alikeof Father and of Son, and is Himself consubstantial and coeternal with both; and that this whole is a Trinity by reasonof the individuality of the persons, and one God by reasonof the indivisible divine substance, as also one Almighty byreason of the indivisible omnipotence; yet so that, when weinquire regarding each singly, it is said that each is Godand Almighty; and, when we speak of all together, it is saidthat there are not three Gods, nor three Almighties, but oneGod Almighty; so great is the indivisible unity of theseThree, which requires that it be so stated. But, whetherthe Holy Spirit of the Father, and of the Son, who are bothgood, can be with propriety called the goodness of both, be- 1¹ Proprietas.VOL. I. 2 G466 [BOOK XL THE CITY OF GOD.cause He is common to both, I do not presume to determinehastily. Nevertheless, I would have less hesitation in sayingthat He is the holiness of both, not as if He were a divineattribute merely, but Himself also the divine substance, andthe third person in the Trinity. I am the rather emboldenedto make this statement, because, though the Father is a spirit,and the Son a spirit, and the Father holy, and the Son holy,yet the third person is distinctively called the Holy Spirit,as if He were the substantial holiness consubstantial with theother two. But if the divine goodness is nothing else thanthe divine holiness, then certainly it is a reasonable studiousness, and not presumptuous intrusion, to inquire whether thesame Trinity be not hinted at in an enigmatical mode ofspeech, by which our inquiry is stimulated, when it is writtenwho made each creature, and by what means, and why. Forit is the Father of the Word who said, Let there be. Andthat which was made when He spoke was certainly made bymeans of the Word. And by the words, " God saw that itwas good," it is sufficiently intimated that God made whatwas made not from any necessity, nor for the sake of supplying any want, but solely from His own goodness, ie. , becauseit was good. And this is stated after the creation had takenplace, that there might be no doubt that the thing made satisfied the goodness on account of which it was made. And ifwe are right in understanding that this goodness is the HolySpirit, then the whole Trinity is revealed to us in the creation. In this, too, is the origin, the enlightenment, the blessedness of the holy city which is above among the holy angels.For if we inquire whence it is, God created it; or whence itswisdom, God illumined it; or whence its blessedness, God isits bliss. It has its form by subsisting in Him; its enlightenment by contemplating Him; its joy by abiding in Him. Itis; it sees; it loves. In God's eternity is its life; in God'struth its light; in God's goodness its joy.25. Ofthe division ofphilosophy into three parts.As far as one can judge, it is for the same reason thatphilosophers have aimed at a threefold division of science,or rather, were enabled to see that there was a threefold divi-BOOK XI. ] THREEFOLD DIVISION OF PHILOSOPHY. 467sion (for they did not invent, but only discovered it) , of whichone part is called physical, another logical, the third ethical.The Latin equivalents of these names are now naturalized inthe writings of many authors, so that these divisions are callednatural, rational, and moral, on which I have touched slightly .in the eighth book. Not that I would conclude that thesephilosophers, in this threefold division, had any thought of atrinity in God, although Plato is said to have been the firstto discover and promulgate this distribution, and he saw thatGod alone could be the author of nature, the bestower of intelligence, and the kindler of love by which life becomes goodand blessed. But certain it is that, though philosophers disagree both regarding the nature of things, and the mode ofinvestigating truth, and of the good to which all our actionsought to tend, yet in these three great general questions alltheir intellectual energy is spent. And though there be aconfusing diversity of opinion, every man striving to establishhis own opinion in regard to each of these questions, yet noone of them all doubts that nature has some cause, sciencesome method, life some end and aim. Then, again, there arethree things which every artificer must possess if he is to effectanything, nature, education, practice. Nature is to be judgedby capacity, education by knowledge, practice by its fruit. Iam aware that, properly speaking, fruit is what one enjoys, use[practice] what one uses. And this seems to be the differencebetween them, that we are said to enjoy that which in itself,and irrespective of other ends, delights us; to use that whichwe seek for the sake of some end beyond. For which reasonthe things of time are to be used rather than enjoyed, that wemay deserve to enjoy things eternal; and not as those perverse creatures who would fain enjoy money and use God,-not spending money for God's sake, but worshipping God formoney's sake. However, in common parlance, we both usefruits and enjoy uses. For we correctly speak of the " fruitsof the field," which certainly we all use in the present life.And it was in accordance with this usage that I said thatthere were three things to be observed in a man, nature,education, practice. From these the philosophers have elaborated, as I said, the threefold division of that science by468 THE CITY OF GOD.[BOOK XI.which a blessed life is attained: the natural having respect tonature, the rational to education, the moral to practice. If,then, we were ourselves the authors of our nature, we shouldhave generated knowledge in ourselves, and should not requireto reach it by education, i.e. , by learning it from others. Ourlove, too, proceeding from ourselves and returning to us, wouldsuffice to make our life blessed, and would stand in need of noextraneous enjoyment. But now, since our nature has God asits requisite author, it is certain that we must have Him forour teacher that we may be wise; Him, too, to dispense to usspiritual sweetness that we may be blessed.26. Ofthe image ofthe supreme Trinity, which wefind in some sort in humannature even in its present state.And we indeed recognise in ourselves the image of God,that is, of the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it benot equal to God, or rather, though it be very far removed fromHim, being neither co- eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with Him,-is yet nearer to Him in nature thanany other of His works, and is destined to be yet restored,that it may bear a still closer resemblance. For we both are,and know that we are, and delight in our being, and ourknowledge of it. Moreover, in these three things no trueseeming illusion disturbs us; for we do not come into contactwith these by some bodily sense, as we perceive the thingsoutside of us, colours, e.g., by seeing, sounds by hearing,smells by smelling, tastes by tasting, hard and soft objects bytouching, of all which sensible objects it is the imagesresembling them, but not themselves which we perceive inthe mind and hold in the memory, and which excite us todesire the objects. But, without any delusive representationof images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, andthat I know and delight in this. In respect of these truths,I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians,who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived,I am.¹ For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am1 This is one of the passages cited by Sir William Hamilton, along with theCogito, ergo sum" of Descartes, in confirmation of his proof, that in so far aswe are conscious of certain modes of existence, in so far we possess an absolutecertainty that we exist. See note A in Hamilton's Reid, p. 744.BOOK XI. ] COGITO, ERGO SUM. 469deceived, by this same token I am.And since I am if I amdeceived, how am I deceived in believing that I am? for it iscertain that I am if I am deceived. Since, therefore, I, theperson deceived, should be, even if I were deceived, certainlyI am not deceived in this knowledge that I am. And, consequently, neither am I deceived in knowing that I know.For, as I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know.And when I love these two things, I add to them a certainthird thing, namely, my love, which is of equal moment. Forneither am I deceived in this, that I love, since in thosethings which I love I am not deceived; though even if thesewere false, it would still be true that I loved false things.For how could I justly be blamed and prohibited from lovingfalse things, if it were false that I loved them? But, sincethey are true and real, who doubts that when they are loved,the love of them is itself true and real? Further, as there isno one who does not wish to be happy, so there is no one:who does not wish to be. For how can he be happy, if heis nothing?27. Ofexistence, and knowledge of it, and the love ofboth.And truly the very fact of existing is by some natural spell!so pleasant, that even the wretched are, for no other reason,unwilling to perish; and, when they feel that they arewretched, wish not that they themselves be annihilated, butthat their misery be so. Take even those who, both in theirown esteem, and in point of fact, are utterly wretched, andwho are reckoned so, not only by wise men on account oftheir folly, but by those who count themselves blessed, andwho think them wretched because they are poor and destitute, if any one should give these men an immortality, inwhich their misery should be deathless, and should offer thealternative, that if they shrank from existing eternally in thesame misery they might be annihilated, and exist nowhereat all, nor in any condition, on the instant they would joyfully, nay exultantly, make election to exist always, even insuch a condition, rather than not exist at all. The wellknown feeling of such men witnesses to this.see that they fear to die, and will rather live in such misfortune than end it by death, is it not obvious enough howFor when we470 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XI...nature shrinks from annihilation? And, accordingly, whenthey know that they must die, they seek, as a great boon,that this mercy be shown them, that they may a little longerlive in the same misery, and delay to end it by death. Andso they indubitably prove with what glad alacrity they wouldaccept immortality, even though it secured to them endlessdestruction. What! do not even all irrational animals, towhom such calculations are unknown, from the huge dragonsdown to the least worms, all testify that they wish to exist,and therefore shun death by every movement in their power?Nay, the very plants and shrubs, which have no such life asenables them to shun destruction by movements we can see,do not they all seek, in their own fashion, to conserve theirexistence, by rooting themselves more and more deeply in theearth, that so they may draw nourishment, and throw outhealthy branches towards the sky? In fine, even the lifelessbodies, which want not only sensation but seminal life, yeteither seek the upper air or sink deep, or are balanced in anintermediate position, so that they may protect their existencein that situation where they can exist in most accordancewith their nature.And how much human nature loves the knowledge of itsexistence, and how it shrinks from being deceived, will besufficiently understood from this fact, that every man prefersto.grieve in a sane mind, rather than to be glad in madness.And this grand and wonderful instinct belongs to men aloneof all animals; for, though some of them have keener eyesightthan ourselves for this world's light, they cannot attain to thatspiritual light with which our mind is somehow irradiated,so that we can form right judgments of all things. For ourpower to judge is proportioned to our acceptance of this light.Nevertheless, the irrational animals, though they have notknowledge, have certainly something resembling knowledge;whereas the other material things are said to be sensible, notbecause they have senses, but because they are the objects of our senses. Yet among plants, their nourishment and generation have some resemblance to sensible life. However, boththese and all material things have their causes hidden in theirnature; but their outward forms, which lend beauty to thisBOOK XI. ] IMAGE OF THE TRINITY IN MAN. 471visible structure of the world, are perceived by our senses, sothat they seem to wish to compensate for their own want ofknowledge by providing us with knowledge. But we perceivethem by our bodily senses in such a way that we do notjudge of them by these senses. For we have another and farsuperior sense, belonging to the inner man, by which we perceive what things are just, and what unjust, -just by meansof an intelligible idea, unjust by the want of it. This sense isaided in its functions neither by the eyesight, nor by theorifice of the ear, nor by the air-holes of the nostrils, nor bythe palate's taste, nor by any bodily touch. By it I amassured both that I am, and that I know this; and these twoI love, and in the same manner I am assured that I lovethem.28. Whether we ought to love the love itself with which we love our existence andour knowledge of it, that so we may more nearly resemble the image of the divine Trinity.We have said as much as the scope of this work demandsregarding these two things, to wit, our existence, and ourknowledge of it, and how much they are loved by us, andhow there is found even in the lower creatures a kind of likeness of these things, and yet with a difference. We have yetto speak of the love wherewith they are loved, to determinewhether this love itself is loved. And doubtless it is; andthis is the proof. Because in men who are justly loved, it israther love itself that is loved; for he is not justly called agood man who knows what is good, but who loves it. Is itnot then obvious that we love in ourselves the very lovewherewith we love whatever good we love? For there isalso a love wherewith we love that which we ought not tolove; and this love is hated by him who loves that wherewith he loves what ought to be loved. For it is quite possible for both to exist in one man. And this co-existence isgood for a man, to the end that this love which conduces toour living well may grow, and the other, which leads us toevil may decrease, until our whole life be perfectly healedand transmuted into good. For if we were beasts, we shouldlove the fleshly and sensual life, and this would be oursufficient good; and when it was well with us in respect of472 THE CITY OF GOD. ' [BOOK XLit, we should seek nothing beyond. In like manner, if wewere trees, we could not, indeed, in the strict sense of theword, love anything; nevertheless we should seem, as it were,to long for that by which we might become more abundantlyand luxuriantly fruitful. If we were stones, or waves, orwind, or flame, or anything of that kind, we should want,indeed, both sensation and life, yet should possess a kind ofattraction towards our own proper position and natural order.For the specific gravity of bodies is, as it were, their love,whether they are carried downwards by their weight, or upwards by their levity. For the body is borne by its gravity,as the spirit by love, whithersoever it is borne.¹ But we aremen, created in the image of our Creator, whose eternity istrue, and whose truth is eternal, whose love is eternal andtrue, and who Himself is the eternal, true, and adorable Trinity,without confusion, without separation; and, therefore, while, aswe run over all the works which He has established, we maydetect, as it were, His footprints, now more and now lessdistinct even in those things that are beneath us, since theycould not so much as exist, or be bodied forth in any shape,or follow and observe any law, had they not been made byHim who supremely is, and is supremely good and supremelywise; yet in ourselves beholding His image, let us, like thatyounger son of the gospel, come to ourselves, and arise andreturn to Him from whom by our sin we had departed.There our being will have no death, our knowledge no error,our love no mishap. But now, though we are assured of ourpossession of these three things, not on the testimony of others,but by our own consciousness of their presence, and becausewe see them with our own most truthful interior vision, yet,as we cannot of ourselves know how long they are to continue,and whether they shall never cease to be, and what issue theirgood or bad use will lead to, we seek for others who canacquaint us of these things, if we have not already foundthem. Of the trustworthiness of these witnesses, there will,not now, but subsequently, be an opportunity of speaking.But in this book let us go on as we have begun, with God'shelp, to speak of the city of God, not in its state of pilgri1 Compare the Confessions, xiii. 9.BOOK XI. ] ANGELIC KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 473mage and mortality, but as it exists ever immortal in theheavens, that is, let us speak of the holy angels who maintaintheir allegiance to God, who never were, nor ever shall be,apostate, between whom and those who forsook light eternaland became darkness, God, as we have already said, made atthe first a separation.29. Ofthe knowledge by which the holy angels know God in His essence, and bywhich they see the causes of His works in the art of the worker, beforethey see them in the works ofthe artist.Those holy angels come to the knowledge of God not byaudible words, but by the presence to their souls of immutable truth, i.e. , of the only- begotten Word of God; andthey know this Word Himself, and the Father, and theirHoly Spirit, and that this Trinity is indivisible, and thatthe three persons of it are one substance, and that thereare not three Gods but one God; and this they so know, thatit is better understood by them than we are by ourselves.Thus, too, they know the creature also, not in itself, but by thisbetter way, in the wisdom of God, as if in the art by whichit was created; and, consequently, they know themselvesbetter in God than in themselves, though they have alsothis latter knowledge. For they were created, and aredifferent from their Creator. In Him, therefore, they have,as it were, a noonday knowledge; in themselves, a twilightknowledge, according to our former explanations. For thereis a great difference between knowing a thing in the designin conformity to which it was made, and knowing it in itself,-e.g., the straightness of lines and correctness of figures isknown in one way when mentally conceived, in another whendescribed on paper; and justice is known in one way in theunchangeable truth, in another in the spirit of a just man.So is it with all other things, -as, the firmament between thewater above and below, which was called the heaven; thegathering of the waters beneath, and the laying bare of thedry land, and the production of plants and trees; the creationof sun, moon, and stars; and of the animals out of the waters,fowls, and fish, and monsters of the deep; and of everythingthat walks or creeps on the earth, and of man himself, who1 Ch. 7.1474 [BOOK XI.THE CITY OF GOD.excels all that is on the earth, -all these things are knownin one way by the angels in the Word of God, in which theysee the eternally abiding causes and reasons according to whichthey were made, and in another way in themselves: in theformer, with a clearer knowledge; in the latter, with a knowledge dimmer, and rather of the bare works than of the design.Yet, when these works are referred to the praise and adorationof the Creator Himself, it is as if morning dawned in theminds of those who contemplate them.30. Ofthe perfection of the number six, which is the first ofthe numberswhich is composed of its aliquot parts.These works are recorded to have been completed in sixdays (the same day being six times repeated), because sixis a perfect number, not because God required a protractedtime, as if He could not at once create all things, which thenshould mark the course of time by the movements proper tothem, but because the perfection of the works was signifiedby the number six. For the number six is the first which ismade up of its own¹ parts, i.e. , of its sixth, third, and half,which are respectively one, two, and three, and which makea total of six. In this way of looking at a number, those aresaid to be its parts which exactly divide it, as a half, a third,a fourth, or a fraction with any denominator,-e.g., four is apart of nine, but not therefore an aliquot part; but one is, forit is the ninth part; and three is, for it is the third. Yetthese two parts, the ninth and the third, or one and three, arefar from making its whole sum of nine. So again, in thenumber ten, four is a part, yet does not divide it; but one isan aliquot part, for it is a tenth; so it has a fifth, which istwo; and a half, which is five. But these three parts, a tenth,a fifth, and a half, or one, two, and five, added together, do notmake ten, but eight. Of the number twelve, again, the partsadded together exceed the whole; for it has a twelth, that is,one; a sixth, or two; a fourth, which is three; a third, whichis four; and a half, which is six. But one, two, three, four, andsix make up, not twelve, but more, viz. sixteen. So much Ihave thought fit to state for the sake of illustrating the perfection of the number six, which is, as I said, the first which1 Or aliquot parts.BOOK XI. ] SIGNIFICANCE OF NUMBERS. 475is exactly made up of its own parts added together; and inthis number of days God finished His work.¹ And, therefore,we must not despise the science of numbers, which, in manypassages of holy Scripture, is found to be of eminent service to the careful interpreter. Neither has it been withoutreason numbered among God's praises, " Thou hast orderedall things in number, and measure, and weight."11331. Ofthe seventh day, in which completeness and repose are celebrated.But, on the seventh day (ie. , the same day repeated seventimes, which number is also a perfect one, though for anotherreason), the rest of God is set forth, and then, too, we firsthear of its being hallowed. So that God did not wish tohallow this day by His works, but by His rest, which has noevening, for it is not a creature; so that, being known in oneway in the Word of God, and in another in itself, it shouldmake a twofold knowledge, daylight and dusk (day and evening) . Much more might be said about the perfection of thenumber seven, but this book is already too long, and I fearlest I should seem to catch at an opportunity of airing mylittle smattering of science more childishly than profitably.I must speak, therefore, in moderation and with dignity, lest,in too keenly following " number," I be accused of forgetting"weight " and " measure." Suffice it here to say, that threeis the first whole number that is odd, four the first that iseven, and of these two, seven is composed. On this accountit is often put for all numbers together, as, " A just manfalleth seven times, and riseth up again," that is, let himfall never so often, he will not perish (and this was meantto be understood not of sins, but of afflictions conducing tolowliness) . Again, " Seven times a day will I praise Thee,"which elsewhere is expressed thus, " I will bless the Lord atall times." And many such instances are found in the divineauthorities, in which the number seven is, as I said, commonlyused to express the whole, or the completeness of anything.41 Comp. Aug. Gen. ad Lit. iv. 2, and De Trinitate, iv. 7.2 For passages illustrating early opinions regarding numbers, see Smith's Dict. Art. number.3 Wisd. xi. 20. 4 Prov. xxiv. 16. 5 Ps. cxix. 164. Ps. xxxiv. 1.476 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XI. ."13In it isAnd so the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord says, “ He willteach you all truth," is signified by this number. "the rest of God, the rest His people find in Him. For rest isin the whole, i.e. in perfect completeness, while in the partthere is labour. And thus we labour as long as we know inpart; "but when that which is perfect is come, then thatwhich is in part shall be done away." It is even with toilwe search into the Scriptures themselves. But the holy angels,towards whose society and assembly we sigh while in thisour toilsome pilgrimage, as they already abide in their eternalhome, so do they enjoy perfect facility of knowledge andfelicity of rest. It is without difficulty that they help us;for their spiritual movements, pure and free, cost them noeffort.32. Ofthe opinion that the angels were created before the world.But if some one oppose our opinion, and say that theholy angels are not referred to when it is said, “ Let therebe light, and there was light;" if he suppose or teach thatsome material light, then first created, was meant, and thatthe angels were created, not only before the firmament dividing the waters and named " the heaven," but also before thetime signified in the words, " In the beginning God createdthe heaven and the earth; " if he allege that this phrase, " Inthe beginning," does not mean that nothing was made before(for the angels were), but that God made all things by HisWisdom or Word, who is named in Scripture " the Beginning,"as He Himself, in the gospel, replied to the Jews when theyasked Him who He was, that He was the Beginning; * —I willnot contest the point, chiefly because it gives me the liveliestsatisfaction to find the Trinity celebrated in the very beginningof the book of Genesis. For, having said, " In the BeginningGod created the heaven and the earth," meaning that theFather made them in the Son (as the psalm testifies whereit says, " How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! in Wisdom1 John xvi. 13.In Isa. xi. 2, as he shows in his eighth sermon, where this subject is furtherpursued; otherwise, one might have supposed he referred to Rev. iii. 1 .1 Cor. xiii . 10.</p><ul><li> Augustine refers to John viii. 25; see p. 415. He might rather have referred to Rev. iii. 14.</li></ul><p>BOOK XI. ] CREATION OF ANGELS. 477hast Thou made them all " ¹), a little afterwards mention isfitly made of the Holy Spirit also. For, when it had beentold us what kind of earth God created at first, or what themass or matter was which God, under the name of " heavenand earth," had provided for the construction of the world, asis told in the additional words, " And the earth was withoutform, and void; and darkness was upon the face of thedeep," then, for the sake of completing the mention of theTrinity, it is immediately added, " And the Spirit of Godmoved upon the face of the waters." Let each one, then,take it as he pleases; for it is so profound a passage, that itmay well suggest, for the exercise of the reader's tact, manyopinions, and none of them widely departing from the rule offaith. At the same time, let none doubt that the holy angels intheir heavenly abodes are, though not, indeed, co-eternal withGod, yet secure and certain of eternal and true felicity. Totheir company the Lord teaches that His little ones belong; andnot only says, " They shall be equal to the angels of God," butshows, too, what blessed contemplation the angels themselvesenjoy, saying, " Take heed that ye despise not one of theselittle ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels doalways behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. "333. Ofthe two different and dissimilar communities of angels, which are notinappropriately signified by the names light and darkness.That certain angels sinned, and were thrust down to thelowest parts of this world, where they are, as it were, incarcerated till their final damnation in the day of judgment, theApostle Peter very plainly declares, when he says that " Godspared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell,and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved untojudgment. " Who, then, can doubt that God, either in foreknowledge or in act, separated between these and the rest?And who will dispute that the rest are justly called " light? "For even we who are yet living by faith, hoping only and notyet enjoying equality with them, are already called " light " bythe apostle: " For ye were sometimes darkness, but now areye light in the Lord." But as for these apostate angels, all1 Ps. civ. 24. 2 Matt. xxii. 30.42 Peter ii. 4.5Eph. v. 8.3 Matt. xviii. 10.478 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XI. .who understand or believe them to be worse than unbelieving men are well aware that they are called " darkness."Wherefore, though light and darkness are to be taken in theirliteral signification in these passages of Genesis in which it issaid, " God said, Let there be light, and there was light," and"God divided the light from the darkness," yet, for our part,we understand these two societies of angels, -the one enjoyingGod, the other swelling with pride; the one to whom it issaid, " Praise ye Him, all His angels," the other whose princesays, " All these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall downand worship me;"2 the one blazing with the holy love of God,the other reeking with the unclean lust of self-advancement.And since, as it is written, " God resisteth the proud, butgiveth grace unto the humble," we may say, the one dwellingin the heaven of heavens, the other cast thence, and ragingthrough the lower regions of the air; the one tranquil in thebrightness of piety, the other tempest- tossed with becloudingdesires; the one, at God's pleasure, tenderly succouring, justlyavenging, the other, set on by its own pride, boiling with thelust of subduing and hurting; the one the minister of God'sgoodness to the utmost of their good pleasure, the other heldin by God's power from doing the harm it would; the formerlaughing at the latter when it does good unwillingly by itspersecutions, the latter envying the former when it gathers inits pilgrims. These two angelic communities, then, dissimilarand contrary to one another, the one both by nature good andby will upright, the other also good by nature but by willdepraved, as they are exhibited in other and more explicitpassages of holy writ, so I think they are spoken of in thisbook of Genesis under the names of light and darkness; andeven if the author perhaps had a different meaning, yet ourdiscussion of the obscure language has not been wasted time;for, though we have been unable to discover his meaning, yetwe have adhered to the rule of faith, which is sufficiently ascertained by the faithful from other passages of equal authority.For, though it is the material works of God which are herespoken of, they have certainly a resemblance to the spiritual,so that Paul can say, " Ye are all the children of light, and1 Ps. cxlviii. 2. 2 Matt. iv. 9. 3 Jas. iv. 6.BOOK XI. ] SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 479the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. " 1 If, on the other hand, the author of Genesis saw inthe words what we see, then our discussion reaches this moresatisfactory conclusion, that the man of God, so eminently anddivinely wise, or rather, that the Spirit of God who by himrecorded God's works which were finished on the sixth day,may be supposed not to have omitted all mention of theangels, whether he included them in the words " in the beginning," because He made them first, or, which seems mostlikely, because He made them in the only-begotten Word.And, under these names heaven and earth, the whole creationis signified, either as divided into spiritual and material, whichseems the more likely, or into the two great parts of the worldin which all created things are contained, so that, first of all,the creation is presented in sum, and then its parts are enumerated according to the mystic number of the days.34. Of the idea that the angels were meant where the separation ofthe watersbythe firmament is spoken of, and ofthat other idea that the waters were not created.IfSome, however, have supposed that the angelic hosts aresomehow referred to under the name of waters, and that thisis what is meant by, " Let there be a firmament in the midstof the waters: "3 that the waters above should be understood ofthe angels, and those below either of the visible waters, or ofthe multitude of bad angels, or of the nations of men.this be so, then it does not here appear when the angels werecreated, but when they were separated. Though there havenot been wanting men foolish and wicked enough to denythat the waters were made by God, because it is nowherewritten, " God said, Let there be waters." With equal follythey might say the same of the earth, for nowhere do we read," God said, Let the earth be." But, say they, it is written," In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "11 Thess. v. 5.2 Augustine himself published this idea in his Conf. xiii. 32, but afterwardsretracted it, as "said without sufficient consideration " (Retract. II. vi. 2) .Epiphanius and Jerome ascribe it to Origen.3 Gen. i. 6.Namely, the Audians and Sampsæans, insignificant heretical sects mentioned by Theodoret and Epiphanius.480 [BOOK XI.THE CITY OF GOD.Yes, and there the water is meant, for both are included inone word. For " the sea is His," as the psalm says, "andHe made it; and His hands formed the dry land." Butthose who would understand the angels by the waters abovethe skies have a difficulty about the specific gravity of theelements, and fear that the waters, owing to their fluidity andweight, could not be set in the upper parts of the world. Sothat, if they were to construct a man upon their own principles, they would not put in his head any moist humours, or" phlegm " as the Greeks call it, and which acts the part ofwater among the elements of our body. But, in God's handiwork, the head is the seat of the phlegm, and surely mostfitly; and yet, according to their supposition, so absurdlythat if we were not aware of the fact, and were informed bythis same record that God had put a moist and cold andtherefore heavy humour in the uppermost part of man's body,these world-weighers would refuse belief. And if they wereconfronted with the authority of Scripture, they would maintain that something else must be meant by the words. But,were we to investigate and discover all the details which arewritten in this divine book regarding the creation of theworld, we should have much to say, and should widely digressfrom the proposed aim of this work. Since, then, we havenow said what seemed needful regarding these two diverseand contrary communities of angels, in which the origin ofthe two human communities (of which we intend to speakanon) is also found, let us at once bring this book also to aconclusion.1 Ps. xcv. 5.BOOK XII. ] GOOD AND BAD ANGELS. 481BOOK TWELFTH.ARGUMENT.AUGUSTINE FIRST INSTITUTES TWO INQUIRIES REGARDING THE ANGELS; NAMELY,WHENCE IS THERE IN SOME A GOOD, AND IN OTHERS AN EVIL WILL? AND,WHAT IS THE REASON OF THE BLESSEDNESS OF THE GOOD, AND THE MISERY OF THE EVIL? AFTERWARDS HE TREATS OF THE CREATION OF MAN, ANDTEACHES THAT HE IS NOT FROM ETERNITY, BUT WAS CREATED, AND BYNONE OTHER THAN GOD.IT1. Thatthe nature of the angels, both good and bad, is one and the same.T has already, in the preceding book, been shown how thetwo cities originated among the angels. Before I speakof the creation of man, and show how the cities took theirrise, so far as regards the race of rational mortals, I see thatI must first, so far as I can, adduce what may demonstratethat it is not incongruous and unsuitable to speak of a societycomposed of angels and men together; so that there are notfour cities or societies, -two, namely, of angels, and as manyof men,—but rather two in all, one composed of the good, theother of the wicked, angels or men indifferently.That the contrary propensities in good and bad angels havearisen, not from a difference in their nature and origin, sinceGod, the good Author and Creator of all essences, created themboth, but from a difference in their wills and desires, it is impossible to doubt. While some stedfastly continued in that whichwas the common good of all, namely, in God Himself, and inHis eternity, truth, and love; others, being enamoured ratherof their own power, as if they could be their own good, lapsedto this private good of their own, from that higher and beatificgood which was common to all, and, bartering the lofty dignityof eternity for the inflation of pride, the most assured verityfor the slyness of vanity, uniting love for factious partisanship,they became proud, deceived, envious. The cause, therefore,of the blessedness of the good is adherence to God. And sothe cause of the others' misery will be found in the contrary,VOL. I. 2 II482 [BOOK XII.THE CITY OF GOD.that is, in their not adhering to God. Wherefore, if whenthe question is asked, why are the former blessed, it is rightlyanswered, because they adhere to God; and when it is asked,why are the latter miserable, it is rightly answered, becausethey do not adhere to God, -then there is no other good forthe rational or intellectual creature save God only. Thus,though it is not every creature that can be blessed (for beasts,trees, stones, and things of that kind have not this capacity) ,yet that creature which has the capacity cannot be blessed ofitself, since it is created out of nothing, but only by Him bywhom it has been created. For it is blessed by the possessionof that whose loss makes it miserable. He, then, who isblessed not in another, but in himself, cannot be miserable,because he cannot lose himself.Accordingly we say that there is no unchangeable good butthe one, true, blessed God; that the things which He made areindeed good because from Him, yet mutable because made notout of Him, but out of nothing. Although, therefore, they arenot the supreme good, for God is a greater good, yet thosemutable things which can adhere to the immutable good, andso be blessed, are very good; for so completely is He theirgood, that without Him they cannot but be wretched. Andthe other created things in the universe are not better on thisaccount, that they cannot be miserable. For no one wouldsay that the other members of the body are superior to theeyes, because they cannot be blind. But as the sentientnature, even when it feels pain, is superior to the stony, whichcan feel none, so the rational nature, even when wretched, ismore excellent than that which lacks reason or feeling, andcan therefore experience no misery. And since this is so,then in this nature which has been created so excellent, thatthough it be mutable itself, it can yet secure its blessednessby adhering to the immutable good, the supreme God; andsince it is not satisfied unless it be perfectly blessed, andcannot be thus blessed save in God,-in this nature, I say,not to adhere to God, is manifestly a fault. Now every faultinjures the nature, and is consequently contrary to the nature.The creature, therefore, which cleaves to God, differs fromVitium: perhaps " fault " most nearly embraces all the uses of this word.BOOK XII. ] OF THE ANGELS. 483those who do not, not by nature, but by fault; and yet bythis very fault the nature itself is proved to be very nobleand admirable. For that nature is certainly praised, the faultof which is justly blamed. For we justly blame the faultbecause it mars the praiseworthy nature. As, then, when wesay that blindness is a defect of the eyes, we prove that sightbelongs to the nature of the eyes; and when we say thatdeafness is a defect of the ears, hearing is thereby proved tobelong to their nature;- -so, when we say that it is a fault ofthe angelic creature that it does not cleave to God, we herebymost plainly declare that it pertained to its nature to cleaveto God. And who can worthily conceive or express howgreat a glory that is, to cleave to God, so as to live to Him,to draw wisdom from Him, to delight in Him, and to enjoythis so great good, without death, error, or grief? And thus,since every vice is an injury of the nature, that very vice ofthe wicked angels, their departure from God, is sufficient proofthat God created their nature so good, that it is an injury toit not to be with God.2. That there is no entity¹ contrary to the divine, because nonentity seems to bethat which is wholly opposite to Him who supremely and always is.This may be enough to prevent any one from supposing,when we speak of the apostate angels, that they could haveanother nature, derived, as it were, from some different origin,and not from God. From the great impiety of this error weshall disentangle ourselves the more readily and easily, themore distinctly we understand that which God spoke by theangel when He sent Moses to the children of Israel: " I amthat I am."2 For since God is the supreme existence, that isto say, supremely is, and is therefore unchangeable, the thingsthat He made He empowered to be, but not to be supremelylike Himself. To some He communicated a more ample, toothers a more limited existence, and thus arranged the naturesof beings in ranks. For as from sapere comes sapientia, sofrom esse comes essentia, —a new word indeed, which the oldLatin writers did not use, but which is naturalized in ourday, that our language may not want an equivalent for theGreek ovoía. For this is expressed word for word by essentia.1 Essentia. 2 Ex. iii. 14. 3 Quintilian calls it dura.484 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK XII.Consequently, to that nature which supremely is, and whichcreated all else that exists, no nature is contrary save thatwhich does not exist. For nonentity is the contrary of thatwhich is. And thus there is no being contrary to God, theSupreme Being, and Author of all beings whatsoever.3. That the enemies of God are so, not by nature but by will, which, as it injuresthem, injures a good nature; for if vice does not injure, it is not vice.In Scripture they are called God's enemies who oppose Hisrule, not by nature, but by vice; having no power to hurtHim, but only themselves. For they are His enemies, notthrough their power to hurt, but by their will to oppose Him.For God is unchangeable, and wholly proof against injury.Therefore the vice which makes those who are called Hisenemies resist Him, is an evil not to God, but to themselves.And to them it is an evil, solely because it corrupts the goodof their nature. It is not nature, therefore, but vice, which iscontrary to God. For that which is evil is contrary to thegood. And who will deny that God is the supreme good?Vice, therefore, is contrary to God, as evil to good. Further,the nature it vitiates is a good, and therefore to this goodalso it is contrary. But while it is contrary to God only asevil to good, it is contrary to the nature it vitiates, both asevil and as hurtful. For to God no evils are hurtful; butonly to natures mutable and corruptible, though, by the testimony of the vices themselves, originally good. For were theynot good, vices could not hurt them. For how do they hurtthem but by depriving them of integrity, beauty, welfare,virtue, and, in short, whatever natural good vice is wont todiminish or destroy? But if there be no good to take away,then no injury can be done, and consequently there can be novice. For it is impossible that there should be a harmlessvice. Whence we gather, that though vice cannot injure theunchangeable good, it can injure nothing but good; becauseit does not exist where it does not injure. This, then, maybe thus formulated: Vice cannot be in the highest good, andcannot be but in some good. Things solely good, therefore,can in some circumstances exist; things solely evil, never; foreven those natures which are vitiated by an evil will, so farindeed as they are vitiated, are evil, but in so far as theyBOOK XII. ] EVERY CREATED NATURE GOOD. 485For this is just, andFor no one is punishedFor even the vice whichare natures they are good. And when a vitiated nature ispunished, besides the good it has in being a nature, it hasthis also, that it is not unpunished. 'certainly everything just is a good.for natural, but for voluntary vices.by the force of habit and long continuance has become asecond nature, had its origin in the will. For at present weare speaking of the vices of the nature, which has a mentalcapacity for that enlightenment which discriminates betweenwhat is just and what is unjust.4. Ofthe nature ofirrational and lifeless creatures, which in their own kindand order do not mar the beauty ofthe universe.But it is ridiculous to condemn the faults of beasts andtrees, and other such mortal and mutable things as are void ofintelligence, sensation, or life, even though these faults shoulddestroy their corruptible nature; for these creatures received,at their Creator's will, an existence fitting them, by passingaway and giving place to others, to secure that lowest form ofbeauty, the beauty of seasons, which in its own place is arequisite part of this world. For things earthly were neitherto be made equal to things heavenly, nor were they, thoughinferior, to be quite omitted from the universe. Since, then,in those situations where such things are appropriate, someperish to make way for others that are born in their room,and the less succumb to the greater, and the things that areovercome are transformed into the quality of those that havethe mastery, this is the appointed order of things transitory.Of this order the beauty does not strike us, because by ourmortal frailty we are so involved in a part of it, that we cannot perceive the whole, in which these fragments that offendus are harmonized with the most accurate fitness and beauty.And therefore, where we are not so well able to perceive thewisdom of the Creator, we are very properly enjoined to believeit, lest in the vanity of human rashness we presume to findany fault with the work of so great an Artificer. At the sametime, if we attentively consider even these faults of earthly1 With this may be compared the argument of Socrates in the Gorgias, in which it is shown that to escape punishment is worse than to suffer it, and that the greatest of evils is to do wrong and not be chastised.486 [ BOOK XII.THE CITY OF GOD.things, which are neither voluntary nor penal, they seem toillustrate the excellence of the natures themselves, which areall originated and created by God; for it is that which pleasesus in this nature which we are displeased to see removed bythe fault, unless even the natures themselves displease men,as often happens when they become hurtful to them, and thenmen estimate them not by their nature, but by their utility;as in the case of those animals whose swarms scourged thepride of the Egyptians. But in this way of estimating, theymay find fault with the sun itself; for certain criminals ordebtors are sentenced by the judges to be set in the sun.Therefore it is not with respect to our convenience or discomfort, but with respect to their own nature, that the creaturesare glorifying to their Artificer. Thus even the nature of theeternal fire, penal though it be to the condemned sinners, ismost assuredly worthy of praise. For what is more beautifulthan fire flaming, blazing, and shining? What more usefulthan fire for warming, restoring, cooking, though nothing ismore destructive than fire burning and consuming? The samething, then, when applied in one way, is destructive, but whenapplied suitably, is most beneficial. For who can find wordsto tell its uses throughout the whole world? We mustnot listen, then, to those who praise the light of fire but findfault with its heat, judging it not by its nature, but by theirconvenience or discomfort. For they wish to see, but notto be burnt. But they forget that this very light which is sopleasant to them, disagrees with and hurts weak eyes; andin that heat which is disagreeable to them, some animalsfind the most suitable conditions of a healthy life.5. That in all natures, of every kind and rank, God is glorified.All natures, then, inasmuch as they are, and have thereforea rank and species of their own, and a kind of internal harmony, are certainly good. And when they are in the placesassigned to them by the order of their nature, they preservesuch being as they have received. And those things whichhave not received everlasting being, are altered for better orfor worse, so as to suit the wants and motions of those thingsto which the Creator's law has made them subservient; andBOOK XII. ]ORIGIN OF EVIL. 487thus they tend in the divine providence to that end which isembraced in the general scheme of the government of theuniverse. So that, though the corruption of transitory andperishable things brings them to utter destruction, it does notprevent their producing that which was designed to be theirresult. And this being so, God, who supremely is, and whotherefore created every being which has not supreme existence(for that which was made of nothing could not be equal toHim, and indeed could not be at all had He not made it) , isnot to be found fault with on account of the creature's faults,but is to be praised in view of the natures He has made.6. Whatthe cause of the blessedness of the good angels is, and what the cause ofthe misery ofthe wicked.Thus the true cause of the blessedness of the good angelsis found to be this, that they cleave to Him who supremelyis. And if we ask the cause of the misery of the bad, itoccurs to us, and not unreasonably, that they are miserablebecause they have forsaken Him who supremely is, and haveturned to themselves who have no such essence. And thisvice, what else is it called than pride? For " pride is thebeginning of sin." 1 They were unwilling, then, to preservetheir strength for God; and as adherence to God was thecondition of their enjoying an ampler being, they diminishedit by preferring themselves to Him. This was the first defect,and the first impoverishment, and the first flaw of their nature,which was created, not indeed supremely existent, but findingit's blessedness in the enjoyment of the Supreme Being; whilstby abandoning Him it should become, not indeed no natureat all, but a nature with a less ample existence, and thereforewretched.If the further question be asked, What was the efficientcause of their evil will? there is none. For what is it whichmakes the will bad, when it is the will itself which makes theaction bad? And consequently the bad will is the cause ofthe bad action, but nothing is the efficient cause of the badwill. For if anything is the cause, this thing either has orhas not a will. If it has, the will is either good or bad. Ifgood, who is so left to himself as to say that a good will1 Eccles. x. 13.488 [BOOK XII.THE CITY OF GOD.makes a will bad? For in this case a good will would bethe cause of sin; a most absurd supposition. On the otherhand, if this hypothetical thing has a bad will, I wish to knowwhat made it so; and that we may not go on for ever, I askat once, what made the first evil will bad? For that is notthe first which was itself corrupted by an evil will, but thatis the first which was made evil by no other will. For if itwere preceded by that which made it evil, that will was firstwhich made the other evil. But if it is replied, " Nothingmade it evil; it always was evil," I ask if it has been existing in some nature. For if not, then it did not exist at all;and if it did exist in some nature, then it vitiated and corrupted it, and injured it, and consequently deprived it of good.And therefore the evil will could not exist in an evil nature,but in a nature at once good and mutable, which this vicecould injure. For if it did no injury, it was no vice; and consequently the will in which it was, could not be called evil.But if it did injury, it did it by taking away or diminishinggood. And therefore there could not be from eternity, as wassuggested, an evil will in that thing in which there had beenpreviously a natural good, which the evil will was able todiminish by corrupting it. If, then, it was not from eternity,who, I ask, made it? The only thing that can be suggestedin reply is, that something which itself had no will, made thewill evil. I ask, then, whether this thing was superior, inferior, or equal to it? If superior, then it is better. How,then, has it no will, and not rather a good will? The samereasoning applies if it was equal; for so long as two thingshave equally a good will, the one cannot produce in the otheran evil will. Then remains the supposition that that whichcorrupted the will of the angelic nature which first sinned,was itself an inferior thing without a will. But that thing,be it of the lowest and most earthly kind, is certainly itselfgood, since it is a nature and being, with a form and rank ofits own in its own kind and order. How, then, can a goodthing be the efficient cause of an evil will? How, I say, cangood be the cause of evil? For when the will abandons whatis above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evilnot because that is evil to which it turns, but because theBOOK XII. ] EVIL DUE TO THE WILL. 489.turning itself is wicked. Therefore it is not an inferior thingwhich has made the will evil, but it is itself which has becomeso by wickedly and inordinately desiring an inferior thing.For if two men, alike in physical and moral constitution, seethe same corporal beauty, and one of them is excited by thesight to desire an illicit enjoyment, while the other stedfastlymaintains a modest restraint of his will, what do we supposebrings it about, that there is an evil will in the one and notin the other? What produces it in the man in whom itexists? Not the bodily beauty, for that was presented equallyto the gaze of both, and yet did not produce in both an evilwill. Did the flesh of the one cause the desire as he looked?But why did not the flesh of the other? Or was it the disposition? But why not the disposition of both? For weare supposing that both were of a like temperament of bodyand soul. Must we, then, say that the one was tempted by asecret suggestion of the evil spirit? As if it was not by hisown will that he consented to this suggestion and to any inducement whatever! This consent, then, this evil will whichhe presented to the evil suasive influence, what was thecause of it, we ask? For, not to delay on such a difficultyas this, if both are tempted equally, and one yields and consents to the temptation, while the other remains unmoved byit, what other account can we give of the matter than this,that the one is willing, the other unwilling, to fall away fromchastity? And what causes this but their own wills, in casesat least such as we are supposing, where the temperamentis identical? The same beauty was equally obvious to theeyes of both; the same secret temptation pressed on bothwith equal violence. However minutely we examine the case,therefore, we can discern nothing which caused the will of theone to be evil. For if we say that the man himself made hiswill evil, what was the man himself before his will was evilbut a good nature created by God, the unchangeable good?Here are two men who, before the temptation, were alike inbody and soul, and of whom one yielded to the tempter whopersuaded him, while the other could not be persuaded todesire that lovely body which was equally before the eyes ofboth. Shall we say of the successfully tempted man that he490 [BOOK XII. THE CITY OF GOD.corrupted his own will, since he was certainly good beforehis will became bad? Then, why did he do so? Was itbecause his will was a nature, or because it was made ofnothing? We shall find that the latter is the case. For ifa nature is the cause of an evil will, what else can we saythan that evil arises from good, or that good is the cause ofevil? And how can it come to pass that a nature, good thoughmutable, should produce any evil-that is to say, should makethe will itself wicked?7. That we ought not to expect to find any efficient cause ofthe evil will.Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evilwill; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself isnot an effecting of something, but a defect. For defectionfrom that which supremely is, to that which has less of being,-this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek todiscover the causes of these defections, -causes, as I havesaid, not efficient, but deficient,-is as if some one sought tosee darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are knownby us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latteronly by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but bytheir want of it. Let no one, then, seek to know from mewhat I know that I do not know; unless he perhaps wishesto learn to be ignorant of that of which all we know is, thatit cannot be known. For those things which are known notby their actuality, but by their want of it, are known, if ourexpression may be allowed and understood, by not knowingthem, that by knowing them they may be not known. Forwhen the eyesight surveys objects that strike the sense, itnowhere sees darkness but where it begins not to see. Andso no other sense but the ear can perceive silence, and yet itis only perceived by not hearing. Thus, too, our mind perceives intelligible forms by understanding them; but whenthey are deficient, it knows them by not knowing them; for"who can understand defects?"28. Ofthe misdirected love whereby the will fell awayfrom the immutableto the mutable good.This I do know, that the nature of God can never, no1 Specie. 2 Ps. xix. 12.BOOK XII. ] FALL OF THE ANGELS. 491where, nowise be defective, and that natures made of nothingcan. These latter, however, the more being they have, andthe more good they do (for then they do something positive),the more they have efficient causes; but in so far as they aredefective in being, and consequently do evil (for then what istheir work but vanity? ) , they have deficient causes. And Iknow likewise, that the will could not become evil, were itunwilling to become so; and therefore its failings are justlypunished, being not necessary, but voluntary. For its defections are not to evil things, but are themselves evil; that isto say, are not towards things that are naturally and in themselves evil, but the defection of the will is evil, because it iscontrary to the order of nature, and an abandonment of thatwhich has supreme being for that which has less. For avariceis not a fault inherent in gold, but in the man who inordinately loves gold, to the detriment of justice, which ought tobe held in incomparably higher regard than gold. Neither isluxury the fault of lovely and charming objects, but of theheart that inordinately loves sensual pleasures, to the neglectof temperance, which attaches us to objects more lovely intheir spirituality, and more delectable by their incorruptibility.Nor yet is boasting the fault of human praise, but of the soulthat is inordinately fond of the applause of men, and thatmakes light of the voice of conscience. Pride, too, is not thefault of him who delegates power, nor of power itself, but ofthe soul that is inordinately enamoured of its own power, anddespises the more just dominion of a higher authority. Consequently he who inordinately loves the good which anynature possesses, even though he obtain it, himself becomesevil in the good, and wretched because deprived of a greatergood.9. Whether the angels, besides receiving from God their nature, receivedfromHim also their good will by the Holy Spirit imbuing them with love.There is, then, no natural efficient cause, or, if I may beallowed the expression, no essential cause, of the evil will,since itself is the origin of evil in mutable spirits, by whichthe good of their nature is diminished and corrupted; andthe will is made evil by nothing else than defection fromGod, a defection of which the cause, too, is certainly de- -492 THE [BOOK XII.CITY OF GOD.ficient. But as to the good will, if we should say that thereis no efficient cause of it, we must beware of giving currencyto the opinion that the good will of the good angels is notcreated, but is co-eternal with God. For if they themselvesare created, how can we say that their good will was eternal?But if created, was it created along with themselves, or didthey exist for a time without it? If along with themselves,then doubtless it was created by Him who created them, and,as soon as ever they were created, they attached themselvesto Him who created them, with the love He created in them.And they are separated from the society of the rest, becausethey have continued in the same good will; while the othershave fallen away to another will, which is an evil one, by thevery fact of its being a falling away from the good; fromwhich, we may add, they would not have fallen away hadthey been unwilling to do so. But if the good angels existedfor a time without a good will, and produced it in themselveswithout God's interference, then it follows that they madethemselves better than He made them. Away with such athought! For without a good will, what were they but evil?Or if they were not evil, because they had not an evil willany more than a good one (for they had not fallen away fromthat which as yet they had not begun to enjoy), certainly theywere not the same, not so good, as when they came to havea good will. Or if they could not make themselves betterthan they were made by Him who is surpassed by none inHis work, then certainly, without His helpful operation,they could not come to possess that good will which madethem better. And though their good will effected that theydid not turn to themselves, who had a more stinted existence,but to Him who supremely is, and that, being united to Him,their own being was enlarged, and they lived a wise andblessed life by His communications to them, what does thisprove but that the will, however good it might be, wouldhave continued helplessly only to desire Him, had not Hewho had made their nature out of nothing, and yet capable ofenjoying Him, first stimulated it to desire Him, and thenfilled it with Himself, and so made it better?Besides, this too has to be inquired into, whether, if theBOOK XII. ] UNFALLEN ANGELS, HOW UPHELD. 493good angels made their own will good, they did so with orwithout will? If without, then it was not their doing. Ifwith, was the will good or bad? If bad, how could a badwill give birth to a good one? If good, then already they hada good will. And who made this will, which already theyhad, but He who created them with a good will, or with thatchaste love by which they cleaved to Him, in one and thesame act creating their nature, and endowing it with grace?And thus we are driven to believe that the holy angels neverexisted without a good will or the love of God. But theangels who, though created good, are yet evil now, became soby their own will. And this will was not made evil by theirgood nature, unless by its voluntary defection from good;for good is not the cause of evil, but a defection from good.is. These angels, therefore, either received less of the graceof the divine love than those who persevered in the same; orif both were created equally good, then, while the one fell bytheir evil will, the others were more abundantly assisted, andattained to that pitch of blessedness at which they becamecertain they should never fall from it, as we have alreadyshown in the preceding book.¹ We must therefore acknowledge, with the praise due to the Creator, that not only ofholy men, but also of the holy angels, it can be said that"the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts by the HolyGhost, which is given unto them. "2 And that not only ofmen, but primarily and principally of angels it is true, as itis written, " It is good to draw near to God. "3 And thosewho have this good in common, have, both with Him towhom they draw near, and with one another, a holy fellowship, and form one city of God-His living sacrifice, and Hisliving temple. And I see that, as I have now spoken of therise of this city among the angels, it is time to speak of theorigin of that part of it which is hereafter to be united to theimmortal angels, and which at present is being gathered fromamong mortal men, and is either sojourning on earth, or, inthe persons of those who have passed through death, is restingin the secret receptacles and abodes of disembodied spirits.For from one man, whom God created as the first, the whole¹ C. 13. 2 Rom. v. 5.-3 Ps. lxxiii. 28.494 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XII..human race descended, according to the faith of Holy Scripture, which deservedly is of wonderful authority among allnations throughout the world; since, among its other truestatements, it predicted, by its divine foresight, that all nationswould give credit to it.10. Ofthefalseness of the history which allots many thousand years to the world's past.Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know notwhat they say, when they speak of the nature and origin ofthe human race. For some hold the same opinion regardingmen that they hold regarding the world itself, that they havealways been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing ourrace, " Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and asa race, they are immortal. " And when they are asked, how,if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truthof their history, which narrates who were the inventors, andwhat they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studiesand the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region,and this or that island? they reply,' that most, if not alllands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, thatmen were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again,the population was restored to its former numbers, and thatthus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and thoughthose things which had been interrupted and checked by thesevere devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to beoriginated then; but that man could not exist at all save asproduced by man. But they say what they think, not whatthey know.They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousandyears, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find thatnot 6000 years have yet passed.3 And, not to spend manywords in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in1 De Deo Socratis.2 Augustine no doubt refers to the interesting account given by Critias, nearthe beginning of the Timæus, of the conversation of Solon with the Egyptianpriests.3 Augustine here follows the chronology of Eusebius, who reckons 5611 yearsfrom the Creation to the taking of Rome by the Goths; adopting the Septuagintversion of the patriarchal ages.BOOK XII . ] ANTIQUITY OF MAN. 495which so many thousands of years are accounted for, norin proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, letme cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote tohis mother Olympias,¹ giving her the narrative he had froman Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacredarchives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentionedalso by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's aterm of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom ofAssyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years arereckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greekand Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria.Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians thisEgyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to thetime of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while amongthe Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians downto the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years,reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus thesegive a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians;and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said tohave formerly reckoned only four months to their year; sothat one year, according to the fuller and truer computationnow in use among them as well as among ourselves, wouldcomprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as Isaid, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian inits chronology. And therefore the former must receive thegreater credit, because it does not exceed the true account ofthe duration of the world as it is given by our documents,which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander,which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter ofchronology from the probable credible account, how muchless can we believe these documents which, though full offabulous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose tothe authority of our well- known and divine books, which pre1 See above, viii. 5.2 It is not apparent to what Augustine refers. The Arcadians, accordingto Macrobius ( Saturn. i. 7) , divided their year into three months, and theEgyptians divided theirs into three seasons: each of these seasons having fourmonths, it is possible that Augustine may have referred to this. See Wilkinson's excursus on the Egyptian year, in Rawlinson's Herod. Book ii.496 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XII. .dicted that the whole world would believe them, and whichthe whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too,that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction offuture events, which have so exactly come to pass!11. Ofthose who suppose that this world indeed is not eternal, but that eitherthere are numberless worlds, or that one and the same world is perpetuallyresolved into its elements, and renewed at the conclusion offixed cycles.There are some, again, who, though they do not supposethat this world is eternal, are of opinion either that this isnot the only world, but that there are numberless worlds, orthat indeed it is the only one, but that it dies, and is bornagain at fixed intervals, and this times without number; ¹ butthey must acknowledge that the human race existed beforethere were other men to beget them. For they cannot suppose that, if the whole world perish, some men would be leftalive in the world, as they might survive in floods and conflagrations, which those other speculators suppose to be partial,and from which they can therefore reasonably argue that afew men survived whose posterity would renew the population; but as they believe that the world itself is renewed outof its own material, so they must believe that out of its elementsthe human race was produced, and then that the progeny ofmortals sprang like that of other animals from their parents.12. How these persons are to be answered, who find fault with the creation of man onthe score ofits recent date.As to those who are always asking why man was notcreated during these countless ages of the infinitely extendedpast, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture,less than 6000 years have elapsed since he began to be, Iwould reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as Ireplied regarding the origin of the world to those who willnot believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, whicheven Plato himself most plainly declares, though some thinkhis statement was not consistent with his real opinion. If it1 The former opinion was held by Democritus and his disciple Epicurus; thelatter by Heraclitus, who supposed that " God amused Himself " by thus renewing worlds.2 The Alexandrian Neo- Platonists endeavoured in this way to escape fromthe obvious meaning of the Timæus.BOOK XII. ] WHY MAN WAS NOT CREATED SOONER. 497offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creationof man is so short, and his years so few according to ourauthorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothingthat has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time beingfinite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when comparedto the interminable eternity. Consequently, if there hadelapsed since the creation of man, I do not say five or six, buteven sixty or six hundred thousand years, or sixty times asmany, or six hundred or six hundred thousand times as many,or this sum multiplied until it could no longer be expressedin numbers, the same question could still be put, Why washe not made before? For the past and boundless eternityduring which God abstained from creating man is so great,that, compare it with what vast and untold number of agesyou please, so long as there is a definite conclusion of thisterm of time, it is not even as if you compared the minutestdrop of water with the ocean that everywhere flows aroundthe globe. For of these two, one indeed is very small, theother incomparably vast, yet both are finite; but that space oftime which starts from some beginning, and is limited by sometermination, be it of what extent it may, if you compareit with that which has no beginning, I know not whether tosay we should count it the very minutest thing, or nothing atall. For, take this limited time, and deduct from the end of it,one by one, the briefest moments (as you might take day by dayfrom a man's life, beginning at the day in which he now lives,back to that of his birth), and though the number of momentsyou must subtract in this backward movement be so greatthat no word can express it, yet this subtraction will sometime carry you to the beginning. But if you take away froma time which has no beginning, I do not say brief momentsone by one, nor yet hours, or days, or months, or years evenin quantities, but terms of years so vast that they cannot benamed by the most skilful arithmetician,-take away terms ofyears as vast as that which we have supposed to be graduallyconsumed by the deduction of moments, -and take them awaynot once and again repeatedly, but always, and what do youeffect, what do you make by your deduction, since you neverreach the beginning which has no existence? Wherefore, thatVOL. I. 2 I498 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK XIIwhich we now demand after five thousand odd years, ourdescendants might with like curiosity demand after six hùndred thousand years, supposing these dying generations of mencontinue so long to decay and be renewed, and supposing posterity continues as weak and ignorant as ourselves. The samequestion might have been asked by those who have lived beforeus, and while man was even newer upon earth. The first manhimself, in short, might, the day after, or the very day of hiscreation, have asked why he was created no sooner.And nomatter at what earlier or later period he had been created, thiscontroversy about the commencement of this world's historywould have had precisely the same difficulties as it has now.13. Ofthe revolution ofthe ages, which some philosophers believe will bring allthings round again, after a certain fixed cycle, to the same order andform as atfirst.1This controversy some philosophers have seen no otherapproved means of solving than by introducing cycles of time,in which there should be a constant renewal and repetition ofthe order of nature; and they have therefore asserted thatthese cycles will ceaselessly recur, one passing away and anothercoming, though they are not agreed as to whether one permanent world shall pass through all these cycles, or whetherthe world shall at fixed intervals die out, and be renewed soas to exhibit a recurrence of the same phenomena—the thingswhich have been, and those which are to be, coinciding. Andfrom this fantastic vicissitude they exempt not even the immortal soul that has attained wisdom, consigning it to a ceaseless transmigration between delusive blessedness and realmisery. For how can that be truly called blessed which hasno assurance of being so eternally, and is either in ignoranceof the truth, and blind to the misery that is approaching, or,knowing it, is in misery and fear? Or if it passes to bliss,and leaves miseries for ever, then there happens in time anew thing which time shall not end. Why not, then, theworld also? Why may not man, too, be a similar thing?So that, by following the straight path of sound doctrine, we1 Antoninus says (ii. 14), " All things from eternity are of like forms, and come round in a circle. " Cf. also ix. 28, and the references to more ancientphilosophical writers in Gataker's notes on these passages.BOOK XII. ] THEORY OF RECURRING CYCLES. 499escape, I know not what circuitous paths, discovered by deceiving and deceived sages.Some, too, in advocating these recurring cycles that restoreall things to their original, cite in favour of their suppositionwhat Solomon says in the book of Ecclesiastes: "What is thatwhich hath been? It is that which shall be. And what isthat which is done? It is that which shall be done andthere is no new thing under the sun. Who can speak andsay, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, whichwas before us." This he said either of those things of which hehad just been speaking the succession of generations, the orbitof the sun, the course of rivers,—or else of all kinds of creaturesthat are born and die. For men were before us, are with us,and shall be after us; and so all living things and all plants.Even monstrous and irregular productions, though differingfrom one another, and though some are reported as solitaryinstances, yet resemble one another generally, in so far as theyare miraculous and monstrous, and, in this sense, have been,and shall be, and are no new and recent things under thesun. However, some would understand these words as meaning that in the predestination of God all things have alreadyexisted, and that thus there is no new thing under the sun.At all events, far be it from any true believer to supposethat by these words of Solomon those cycles are meant, inwhich, according to those philosophers, the same periodsand events of time are repeated; as if, for example, thephilosopher Plato, having taught in the school at Athenswhich is called the Academy, so, numberless ages before,at long but certain intervals, this same Plato, and the sameschool, and the same disciples existed, and so also are to berepeated during the countless cycles that are yet be be, -farbe it, I say, from us to believe this. For once Christ diedfor our sins; and, rising from the dead, He dieth no more.2Death hath no more dominion over Him;' and we ourselvesafter the resurrection shall be " ever with the Lord," to whomwe now say, as the sacred Psalmist dictates, " Thou shalt keepus, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve us from this generation.'66¹ Eccles. i. 9, 10. So Origen, de Prin. iii. 5, and ii. 3.2 Rom. vi. 9. 31 Thess. iv. 16. 4 Ps. xii. 7."14500 [BOOK XII.THE CITY OF GOD."2And that too which follows, is, I think, appropriate enough:"The wicked walk in a circle; not because their life is torecur by means of these circles, which these philosophersimagine, but because the path in which their false doctrinenow runs is circuitous.14. Ofthe creation of the human race in time, and how this was effectedwithout any new design or change ofpurpose on God's part.What wonder is it if, entangled in these circles, they findneither entrance nor egress? For they know not how thehuman race, and this mortal condition of ours, took its origin,nor how it will be brought to an end, since they cannotpenetrate the inscrutable wisdom of God. For, though Himselfeternal, and without beginning, yet He caused time to have abeginning; and man, whom He had not previously made, Hemade in time, not from a new and sudden resolution, but byHis unchangeable and eternal design. Who can search outthe unsearchable depth of this purpose, who can scrutinize theinscrutable wisdom, wherewith God, without change of will,created man, who had never before been, and gave him anexistence in time, and increased the human race from oneindividual? For the Psalmist himself, when he had firstsaid, " Thou shalt keep us, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve usfrom this generation for ever," and had then rebuked thosewhose foolish and impious doctrine preserves for the soul noeternal deliverance and blessedness, adds immediately, "Thewicked walk in a circle. " Then, as if it were said to him," What then do you believe, feel, know? Are we to believethat it suddenly occurred to God to create man, whom Hehad never before made in a past eternity, God, to whomnothing new can occur, and in whom is no changeableness? "the Psalmist goes on to reply, as if addressing God Himself,According to the depth of Thy wisdom Thou hast multipliedthe children of men." Let men, he seems to say, fancy whatthey please, let them conjecture and dispute as seems good tothem, but Thou hast multiplied the children of men accordingto the depth of thy wisdom, which no man can comprehend.For this is a depth indeed, that God always has been, and thatman, whom He had never made before, He willed to make intime, and this without changing His design and will.""BOOK XII. ] HAD GOD ALWAYS CREATURES? 50115. Whether we are to believe that God, as He has always been sovereign Lord,has always had creatures over whom He exercised His sovereignty; andin what sense we can say that the creature has always been, and yet cannotsay it is co- eternal.For my own part, indeed, as I dare not say that there everwas a time when the Lord God was not Lord, ' so I ought notto doubt that man had no existence before time, and was firstcreated in time. But when I consider what God could be theLord of, if there was not always some creature, I shrink frommaking any assertion, remembering my own insignificance, andthat it is written, " What man is he that can know thecounsel of God? or who can think what the will of the Lordis? For the thoughts of mortal men are timid, and ourdevices are but uncertain. For the corruptible body pressethdown the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down themind that museth upon many things." Manythings certainlydo I muse upon in this earthly tabernacle, because the one thingwhich is true among the many, or beyond the many, I cannotfind. If, then, among these many thoughts, I say that therehave always been creatures for Him to be Lord of, who isalways and ever has been Lord, but that these creatures havenot always been the same, but succeeded one another (for wewould not seem to say that any is co-eternal with the Creator,an assertion condemned equally by faith and sound reason), Imust take care lest I fall into the absurd and ignorant errorof maintaining that by these successions and changes mortalcreatures have always existed, whereas the immortal creatureshad not begun to exist until the date of our own world, whenthe angels were created; if at least the angels are intended.by that light which was first made, or, rather, by that heavenof which it is said, " In the beginning God created the heavens.and the earth. " 3 The angels at least did not exist beforethey were created; for if we say that they have alwaysexisted, we shall seem to make them co-eternal with theCreator. Again, if I say that the angels were not created intime, but existed before all times, as those over whom God,who has ever been Sovereign, exercised His sovereignty, thenI shall be asked whether, if they were created before all time,1 Cf. de Trin. v. 17. 2 Wisdom ix. 13-15. 3 Gen. i. 1.502 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XII. .It may they, being creatures, could possibly always exist.perhaps be replied, Why not always, since that which is inall time may very properly be said to be " always? " Now,so true is it that these angels have existed in all time, thateven before time was, they were created; if at least timebegan with the heavens, and the angels existed before theheavens. And if time was even before the heavenly bodies, notindeed marked by hours, days, months, and years, —for thesemeasures of time's periods which are commonly and properlycalled times, did manifestly begin with the motion of theheavenly bodies, and so God said, when He appointed them," Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and foryears," ¹-if, I say, time was before these heavenly bodies by somechanging movement, whose parts succeeded one another andcould not exist simultaneously, and if there was some suchmovement among the angels which necessitated the existenceof time, and that they from their very creation should be subject to these temporal changes, then they have existed in alltime, for time came into being along with them. And whowill say that what was in all time, was not always?But if I make such a reply, it will be said to me, How, then,are they not co- eternal with the Creator, if He and theyalways have been? How even can they be said to havebeen created, if we are to understand that they have alwaysexisted? What shall we reply to this? Shall we say thatboth statements are true? that they always have been, sincethey have been in all time, they being created along withtime, or time along with them, and yet that also they werecreated? For, similarly, we will not deny that time itselfwas created, though no one doubts that time has been in alltime; for if it has not been in all time, then there was a timewhen there was no time. But the most foolish person couldnot make such an assertion. For we can reasonably saythere was a time when Rome was not; there was a timewhen Jerusalem was not; there was a time when Abrahamwas not; there was a time when man was not, and so on:in fine, if the world was not made at the commencementof time, but after some time had elapsed, we can say there1 Gen. i. 14.BOOK XII. ] ETERNITY AND TIME. 503was a time when the world was not. But to say therewas a time when time was not, is as absurd as to saythere was a man when there was no man; or, this world waswhen this world was not. For if we are not referring tothe same object, the form of expression may be used, as, therewas another man when this man was not. Thus we canreasonably say there was another time when this time wasnot; but not the merest simpleton could say there was atime when there was no time. As, then, we say that timewas created, though we also say that it always has been,since in all time time has been, so it does not follow that ifthe angels have always been, they were therefore not created.For we say that they have always been, because they havebeen in all time; and we say they have been in all time,because time itself could no wise be without them. Forwhere there is no creature whose changing movements admitof succession, there cannot be time at all. And consequently,even if they have always existed, they were created; neither,if they have always existed, are they therefore co- eternal withthe Creator. For He has always existed in unchangeableeternity; while they were created, and are said to have beenalways, because they have been in all time, time being impossible without the creature. But time passing away by itschangefulness, cannot be co- eternal with changeless eternity.And consequently, though the immortality of the angels doesnot pass in time, does not become past as if now it were not,nor has a future as if it were not yet, still their movements,which are the basis of time, do pass from future to past; andtherefore they cannot be co-eternal with the Creator, in whosemovement we cannot say that there has been that which nowis not, or shall be that which is not yet. Wherefore, if Godalways has been Lord, He has always had creatures under Hisdominion, creatures, however, not begotten of Him, but createdby Him out of nothing; nor co- eternal with Him, for He wasbefore them, though at no time without them, because Hepreceded them, not by the lapse of time, but by His abidingeternity. But if I make this reply to those who demandhow He was always Creator, always Lord, if there were notalways a subject creation; or how this was created, and not504 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XII..rather co-eternal with its Creator, if it always was, I fear Imay be accused of recklessly affirming what I know not,instead of teaching what I know. I return, therefore, to thatwhich our Creator has seen fit that we should know; and thosethings which He has allowed the abler men to know in thislife, or has reserved to be known in the next by the perfectedsaints, I acknowledge to be beyond my capacity. But I havethought it right to discuss these matters without makingpositive assertions, that they who read may be warned to abstain from hazardous questions, and may not deem themselvesfit for everything. Let them rather endeavour to obey thewholesome injunction of the apostle, when he says, " For Isay, through the grace given unto me, to every man that isamong you, not to think of himself more highly than he oughtto think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealtto every man the measure of faith. "¹ For if an infant receivenourishment suited to its strength, it becomes capable, as itgrows, of taking more; but if its strength and capacity beovertaxed, it dwines away in place of growing.16. How we are to understand God's promise of life eternal, which wasuttered before the " eternal times. ”I own that I do not know what ages passed before thehuman race was created, yet I have no doubt that no createdthing is co-eternal with the Creator. But even the apostlespeaks of time as eternal, and this with reference, not to thefuture, but, which is more surprising, to the past. For hesays, " In hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie promised before the eternal times, but hath in due times manifested His word.""12 You see he says that in the past therehave been eternal times, which, however, were not co-eternalwith God. And since God before these eternal times notonly existed, but also " promised" life eternal, which Hemanifested in its own times (that is to say, in due times),what else is this than His word? For this is life eternal.But then, how did He promise; for the promise was made tomen, and yet they had no existence before eternal times?1 Rom. xii. 3.Titus i. 2, 3. Augustine here follows the version of Jerome, and not theVulgate. Comp. Contra Priscill. 6, and de Gen. c. Man. iv. 4.BOOK XII . ] CREATION NOT A NEW IDEA TO GOD. 505Does this not mean that, in His own eternity, and in Hisco-eternal word, that which was to be in its own time wasalready predestined and fixed?17. What defence is made by sound faith regarding God's unchangeable counseland will, against the reasonings of those who hold that the works of Godare eternally repeated in revolving cycles that restore all things as they were.Of this, too, I have no doubt, that before the first man wascreated, there never had been a man at all, neither this sameman himself recurring by I know not what cycles, and havingmade I know not how many revolutions, nor any other ofsimilar nature. From this belief I am not frightened byphilosophical arguments, among which that is reckoned themost acute which is founded on the assertion that the infinitecannot be comprehended by any mode of knowledge. Consequently, they argue, God has in His own mind finite conceptions of all finite things which He makes. Now it cannotbe supposed that His goodness was ever idle; for if it were,there should be ascribed to Him an awakening to activity intime, from a past eternity of inactivity, as if He repented ofan idleness that had no beginning, and proceeded, therefore, tomake a beginning of work. This being the case, they say itmust be that the same things are always repeated, and thatas they pass, so they are destined always to return, whetheramidst all these changes the world remains the same, —theworld which has always been, and yet was created, —or thatthe world in these revolutions is perpetually dying out andbeing renewed; otherwise, if we point to a time when theworks of God were begun, it would be believed that He considered His past eternal leisure to be inert and indolent, andtherefore condemned and altered it as displeasing to Himself.Now if God is supposed to have been indeed always makingtemporal things, but different from one another, and one afterthe other, so that He thus came at last to make man, whomHe had never made before, then it may seem that He mademan not with knowledge (for they suppose no knowledge cancomprehend the infinite succession of creatures) , but at thedictate of the hour, as it struck Him at the moment, with asudden and accidental change of mind. On the other hand,say they, if those cycles be admitted, and if we suppose that506 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XII..the same temporal things are repeated, while the world eitherremains identical through all these rotations, or else dies awayand is renewed, then there is ascribed to God neither theslothful ease of a past eternity, nor a rash and unforeseencreation. And if the same things be not thus repeated incycles, then they cannot by any science or prescience be comprehended in their endless diversity. Even though reasoncould not refute, faith would smile at these argumentations,with which the godless endeavour to turn our simple pietyfrom the right way, that we may walk with them “ in a circle.”But by the help of the Lord our God, even reason, and thatreadily enough, shatters these revolving circles which conjecture frames. For that which specially leads these menastray to prefer their own circles to the straight path oftruth, is, that they measure by their own human, changeable,and narrow intellect the divine mind, which is absolutelyunchangeable, infinitely capacious, and, without succession ofthought, counting all things without number. So that sayingof the apostle comes true of them, for, " comparing themselveswith themselves, they do not understand." For because theydo, in virtue of a new purpose, whatever newthing has occurredto them to be done (their minds being changeable), they conclude it is so with God; and thus compare, not God, for theycannot conceive God, but think of one like themselves whenthey think of Him, -not God, but themselves, and not withHim, but with themselves. For our part, we dare not believethat God is affected in one way when He works, in anotherwhen He rests. Indeed, to say that He is affected at all, isan abuse of language, since it implies that there comes to besomething in His nature which was not there before. For hewho is affected is acted upon, and whatever is acted upon ischangeable. In His leisure, therefore, is no laziness, indolence,inactivity; as in His work is no labour, effort, industry. Hecan act while He reposes, and repose while He acts.He canbegin a new work with (not a new, but) an eternal design;and what He has not made before, He does not now beginto make because He repents of His former repose.But12 Cor. x. 12. Here, and in Enar. in Ps. xxxiv. , and also in Cont. Faust.xxii. 47, Augustine follows the Greek, and not the Vulgate.BOOK XII . ] OF GOD'S KNOWLEDGE. 507when one speaks of His former repose and subsequent operation (and I know not how men can understand these things) ,this " former" and " subsequent" are applied only to the thingscreated, which formerly did not exist, and subsequently cameinto existence. But in God the former purpose is not alteredand obliterated by the subsequent and different purpose, butby one and the same eternal and unchangeable will He effectedregarding the things He created, both that formerly, so longas they were not, they should not be, and that subsequently,when they began to be, they should come into existence.And thus, perhaps, He would show in a very striking way, tothose who have eyes for such things, how independent He isof what He makes, and how it is of His own gratuitous goodness He creates, since from eternity He dwelt without creaturesin no less perfect a blessedness.18. Against those who assert that things that are infinite¹ cannot becomprehended by the knowledge ofGod.As for their other assertion, that God's knowledge cannotcomprehend things infinite, it only remains for them to affirm,in order that they may sound the depths of their impiety, thatGod does not know all numbers. For it is very certain thatthey are infinite; since, no matter at what number you supposean end to be made, this number çan be, I will not say, increased by the addition of one more, but however great it be,and however vast be the multitude of which it is the rationaland scientific expression, it can still be not only doubled, buteven multiplied. Moreover, each number is so defined by itsown properties, that no two numbers are equal. They aretherefore both unequal and different from one another; andwhile they are simply finite, collectively they are infinite.Does God, therefore, not know numbers on account of thisinfinity; and does His knowledge extend only to a certainheight in numbers, while of the rest He is ignorant? Whois so left to himself as to say so? Yet they can hardly pretend to put numbers out of the question, or maintain that theyhave nothing to do with the knowledge of God; for Plato,"their great authority, represents God as framing the world on1 i.e. indefinite, or an indefinite succession of things.2 Again in the Timæus.508 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XII. .2numerical principles; and in our books also it is said to God,"Thou hast ordered all things in number, and measure, andweight." The prophet also says, " Who bringeth out their hostby number." And the Saviour says in the Gospel, " The veryhairs of your head are all numbered." 3 Far be it, then, fromus to doubt that all number is known to Him " whose understanding," according to the Psalmist, " is infinite." The infinity of number, though there be no numbering of infinitenumbers, is yet not incomprehensible by Him whose understanding is infinite. And thus, if everything which is comprehended is defined or made finite by the comprehension ofhim who knows it, then all infinity is in some ineffable waymade finite to God, for it is comprehensible by His knowledge.Wherefore, if the infinity of numbers cannot be infinite to theknowledge of God, by which it is comprehended, what are wepoor creatures that we should presume to fix limits to Hisknowledge, and say that unless the same temporal things berepeated by the same periodic revolutions, God cannot eitherforeknow His creatures that He may make them, or knowthem when He has made them? God, whose knowledge issimply manifold, and uniform in its variety, comprehends allincomprehensibles with so incomprehensible a comprehension,that though He willed always to make His later works noveland unlike what went before them, He could not produce themwithout order and foresight, nor conceive them suddenly, butby His eternal foreknowledge.19. Of worlds without end, or ages ofages.I do not presume to determine whether God does so, andwhether these times which are called " ages of ages " are joinedtogether in a continuous series, and succeed one another witha regulated diversity, and leave exempt from their vicissitudesonly those who are freed from their misery, and abide withoutend in a blessed immortality; or whether these are calledages of ages," that we may understand that the ages remainunchangeable in God's unwavering wisdom, and are the efficientcauses, as it were, of those ages which are being spent in time.s Matt. x. 30.661 Wisdom xi. 20.Ps. cxlvii. 5.2 Isa. xl. 26.5 De sæculis sæculorum.BOOK XII. ] THEORY OF CYCLES REFUTED. 509WhichPossibly " ages " is used for " age," so that nothing else ismeant by " ages of ages " than by " age of age," as nothingelse is meant by " heavens of heavens " than by " heaven ofheaven. " For God called the firmament, above which are thewaters, " Heaven," and yet the psalm says, " Let the waters thatare above the heavens praise the name of the Lord.” ¹of these two meanings we are to attach to " ages of ages," orwhether there is not some other and better meaning still, is avery profound question; and the subject we are at presenthandling presents no obstacle to our meanwhile deferring thediscussion of it, whether we may be able to determine anything about it, or may only be made more cautious by itsfurther treatment, so as to be deterred from making any rashaffirmations in a matter of such obscurity. For at present weare disputing the opinion that affirms the existence of thoseperiodic revolutions by which the same things are always recurring at intervals of time. Now, whichever of these suppositions regarding the " ages of ages " be the true one, it availsnothing for the substantiating of those cycles; for whether theages of ages be not a repetition of the same world, but different worlds succeeding one another in a regulated connection,the ransomed souls abiding in well-assured bliss without anyrecurrence of misery, or whether the ages of ages be the eternalcauses which rule what shall be and is in time, it equallyfollows, that those cycles which bring round the same thingshave no existence; and nothing more thoroughly explodes themthan the fact of the eternal life of the saints.20. Ofthe impiety of those who assert that the souls which enjoy true and perfectblessedness, must yet again and again in these periodic revolutions return to labour and misery.What pious ears could bear to hear that after a life spentin so many and severe distresses (if, indeed, that should becalled a life at all which is rather a death, so utter that thelove of this present death makes us fear that death which delivers us from it) , that after evils so disastrous, and miseries ofall kinds have at length been expiated and finished by the helpof true religion and wisdom, and when we have thus attainedto the vision of God, and have entered into bliss by the con1 Ps. cxlviii. 4.510 [BOOK XII. THE CITY OF GOD.templation of spiritual light and participation in His unchangeable immortality, which we burn to attain, -that we must atsome time lose all this, and that they who do lose it are castdown from that eternity, truth, and felicity to infernal mortality and shameful foolishness, and are involved in accursedwoes, in which God is lost, truth held in detestation, and happiness sought in iniquitous impurities? and that this willhappen endlessly again and again, recurring at fixed intervals,and in regularly returning periods? and that this everlastingand ceaseless revolution of definite cycles, which remove andrestore true misery and deceitful bliss in turn, is contrived inorder that God may be able to know His own works, since onthe one hand He cannot rest from creating, and on the other,cannot know the infinite number of His creatures, if He alwaysmakes creatures? Who, I say, can listen to such things?Who can accept or suffer them to be spoken? Were they true,it were not only more prudent to keep silence regarding them,but even (to express myself as best I can) it were the part ofwisdom not to know them. For if in the future world weshall not remember these things, and by this oblivion be blessed,why should we now increase our misery, already burdensomeenough, by the knowledge of them? If, on the other hand,the knowledge of them will be forced upon us hereafter, nowat least let us remain in ignorance, that in the present expectation we may enjoy a blessedness which the future reality isnot to bestow; since in this life we are expecting to obtainlife everlasting, but in the world to come are to discover it tobe blessed, but not everlasting.And if they maintain that no one can attain to the blessedness of the world to come, unless in this life he has been indoctrinated in those cycles in which bliss and misery relieveone another, how do they avow that the more a man loves God,the more readily he attains to blessedness, they who teachwhat paralyzes love itself? For who would not be more remiss and lukewarm in his love for a person whom he thinkshe shall be forced to abandon, and whose truth and wisdom heshall come to hate; and this, too, after he has quite attainedto the utmost and most blissful knowledge of Him that he iscapable of? Can any one be faithful in his love, even to aBOOK XII. ] CREATION A NEW THING. 511human friend, if he knows that he is destined to become hisenemy? 1 God forbid that there be any truth in an opinion.which threatens us with a real misery that is never to end, butis often and endlessly to be interrupted by intervals of fallacioushappiness. For what happiness can be more fallacious andfalse than that in whose blaze of truth we yet remain ignorantthat we shall be miserable, or in whose most secure citadel weyet fear that we shall be so? For if, on the one hand, we are tobe ignorant of coming calamity, then our present misery is not soshortsighted, for it is assured of coming bliss. If, on the otherhand, the disaster that threatens is not concealed from us inthe world to come, then the time of misery which is to be atlast exchanged for a state of blessedness, is spent by the soulmore happily than its time of happiness, which is to end in areturn to misery. And thus our expectation of unhappinessis happy, but of happiness unhappy. And therefore, as wehere suffer present ills, and hereafter fear ills that are imminent, it were truer to say that we shall always be miserable,than that we can some time be happy.But these things are declared to be false by the loud testimony of religion and truth; for religion truthfully promises atrue blessedness, of which we shall be eternally assured, andwhich cannot be interrupted by any disaster. Let us therefore keep to the straight path, which is Christ, and, with Himas our Guide and Saviour, let us turn away in heart andmind from the unreal and futile cycles of the godless. Porphyry, Platonist though he was, abjured the opinion of hisschool, that in these cycles souls are ceaselessly passing awayand returning, either being struck with the extravagance ofthe idea, or sobered by his knowledge . of Christianity. As Imentioned in the tenth book, he preferred saying that thesoul, as it had been sent into the world that it might knowevil, and be purged and delivered from it, was never againexposed to such an experience after it had once returned to1 Cicero has the same (de Amicitia, 16): " Quonam modo quisquam amicusesse poterit, cui se putabit inimicum esse posse?" He also quotes Scipio to theeffect that no sentiment is more unfriendly to friendship than this, that we shouldlove as if some day we were to hate.2 C. 30.512 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XII. .the Father. And if he abjured the tenets of his school, howmuch more ought we Christians to abominate and avoid anopinion so unfounded and hostile to our faith? But havingdisposed of these cycles and escaped out of them, no necessity compels us to suppose that the human race had no beginning in time, on the ground that there is nothing new innature which, by I know not what cycles, has not at someprevious period existed, and is not hereafter to exist again.For if the soul, once delivered, as it never was before, is neverto return to misery, then there happens in its experience something which never happened before; and this, indeed, something of the greatest consequence, to wit, the secure entranceinto eternal felicity. And if in an immortal nature there canoccur a novelty, which never has been, nor ever shall be, reproduced by any cycle, why is it disputed that the same mayoccur in mortal natures? If they maintain that blessednessis no new experience to the soul, but only a return to thatstate in which it has been eternally, then at least its deliverance from misery is something new, since, by their own showing, the misery from which it is delivered is itself, too, a newexperience. And if this new experience fell out by accident,and was not embraced in the order of things appointed byDivine Providence, then where are those determinate andmeasured cycles in which no new thing happens, but allthings are reproduced as they were before? If, however, thisnew experience was embraced in that providential order ofnature (whether the soul was exposed to the evil of this worldfor the sake of discipline, or fell into it by sin), then it ispossible for new things to happen which never happenedbefore, and which yet are not extraneous to the order ofnature. And if the soul is able by its own imprudence tocreate for itself a new misery, which was not unforeseen by theDivine Providence, but was provided for in the order of naturealong with the deliverance from it, how can we, even withall the rashness of human vanity, presume to deny that Godcan create new things-new to the world, but not to Himwhich He never before created, but yet foresaw from alleternity? If they say that it is indeed true that ransomedsouls return no more to misery, but that even so no new thingBOOK XII. ] NO CHANGE OF GOD'S WILL IN CREATION. 513happens, since there always have been, now are, and ever shallbe a succession of ransomed souls, they must at least grantthat in this case there are new souls to whom the misery andthe deliverance from it are new. For if they maintain thatthose souls out of which new men are daily being made (fromwhose bodies, if they have lived wisely, they are so deliveredthat they never return to misery) are not new, but haveexisted from eternity, they must logically admit that they areinfinite. For however great a finite number of souls therewere, that would not have sufficed to make perpetually newmen from eternity,-men whose souls were to be eternallyfreed from this mortal state, and never afterwards to return toit. And our philosophers will find it hard to explain how thereis an infinite number of souls in an order of nature whichthey require shall be finite, that it may be known by God.And now that we have exploded these cycles which weresupposed to bring back the soul at fixed periods to the samemiseries, what can seem more in accordance with godly reasonthan to believe that it is possible for God both to create newthings never before created, and in doing so, to preserve Hiswill unaltered? But whether the number of eternally redeemed souls can be continually increased or not, let thephilosophers themselves decide, who are so subtle in determining where infinity cannot be admitted. For our own part,our reasoning holds in either case. For if the number ofsouls can be indefinitely increased, what reason is there to denythat what had never before been created, could be created?since the number of ransomed souls never existed before, andhas yet not only been once made, but will never cease to beanew coming into being. If, on the other hand, it be moresuitable that the number of eternally ransomed souls be definite,and that this number will never be increased, yet this number,whatever it be, did assuredly never exist before, and it cannotincrease, and reach the amount it signifies, without having somebeginning; and this beginning never before existed. That thisbeginning, therefore, might be, the first man was created.21. That there was created at first but one individual, and that the humanrace was created in him.Now that we have solved, as well as we could, this veryVOL. L 2 K514 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XII..difficult question about the eternal God creating new things,without any novelty of will, it is easy to see how much betterit is that God was pleased to produce the human race from theone individual whom He created, than if He had originated itin several men. For as to the other animals, He created somesolitary, and naturally seeking lonely places, as the eagles,kites, lions, wolves, and such like; others gregarious, whichherd together, and prefer to live in company, as pigeons,starlings, stags, and little fallow deer, and the like: butneither class did He cause to be propagated from individuals,but called into being several at once. Man, on the otherhand, whose nature was to be a mean between the angelic andbestial, He created in such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as his rightful Lord, and piously kept Hiscommandments, he should pass into the company of the angels,and obtain, without the intervention of death, ' a blessed andendless immortality; but if he offended the Lord his God bya proud and disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do, the slaveof appetite, and doomed to eternal punishment after death.And therefore God created only one single man, not, certainly,that he might be a solitary bereft of all society, but that bythis means the unity of society and the bond of concord mightbe more effectually commended to him, men being boundtogether not only by similarity of nature, but by family affection. And indeed He did not even create the woman thatwas to be given him as his wife, as he created the man, butcreated her out of the man, that the whole human race mightderive from one man.22. That Godforeknew that the first man would sin, and that He at the sametimeforesaw how large a multitude ofgodly persons would by His gracebe translated to thefellowship of the angels.And God was not ignorant that man would sin, and that,being himself made subject now to death, he would propagatemen doomed to die, and that these mortals would run to suchenormities in sin, that even the beasts devoid of rational will,and who were created in numbers from the waters and theearth, would live more securely and peaceably with their own1 Coquæus remarks that this is levelled against the Pelagians.BOOK XII. ] MAN CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE. 515kind than men, who had been propagated from one individualfor the very purpose of commending concord. For not evenlions or dragons have ever waged with their kind such warsas men have waged with one another.¹ But God foresaw alsothat by His grace a people would be called to adoption, andthat they, being justified by the remission of their sins, wouldbe united by the Holy Ghost to the holy angels in eternalpeace, the last enemy, death, being destroyed; and He knewthat this people would derive profit from the considerationthat God had caused all men to be derived from one, for thesake of showing how highly He prizes unity in a multitude.23. Ofthe nature of the human soul created in the image ofGod.God, then, made man in His own image. For He createdfor him a soul endowed with reason and intelligence, so thathe might excel all the creatures of earth, air, and sea, whichwere not so gifted. And when He had formed the man outof the dust of the earth, and had willed that his soul shouldbe such as I have said,-whether He had already made it,and now by breathing imparted it to man, or rather made itby breathing, so that that breath which God made by breathing (for what else is " to breathe" than to make breath?) isthe soul,2-He made also a wife for him, to aid him in thework of generating his kind, and her He formed of a bonetaken out of the man's side, working in a divine manner.For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion,as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use theirhands, and material furnished to them, that by their artisticskill they may fashion some material object. God's hand isGod's power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results.But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure1"Quando leoniFortior eripuit vitam leo? quo nemore unquamExspiravit aper majoris dentibus apri?Indica tigris agit rabida cum tigride pacem Perpetuam; sævis inter se convenit ursis.Ast homini, " etc.JUVENAL, Sat. xv. 160-5.-See also the very striking lines which precede these.See this further discussed in Gen. ad Lit. vii. 35, and in Delitzsch's Bibl.Psychology.516 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XII. .by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom ofGod, whereby He understands and produces without seedseven seeds themselves; and because they cannot understandthe things which at the beginning were created, they aresceptical regarding them-as if the very things which theydo know about human propagation, conceptions and births,would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributedby many rather to physical and natural causes than to thework of the divine mind.24. Whether the angels can be said to be the creators ofany, even the least creature.But in this book we have nothing to do with those who donot believe that the divine mind made or cares for this world.As for those who believe their own Plato, that all mortalanimals-among whom man holds the pre-eminent place, andis near to the gods themselves- -were created not by that mosthigh God who made the world, but by other lesser godscreated by the Supreme, and exercising a delegated powerunder His control, -if only those persons be delivered fromthe superstition which prompts them to seek a plausiblereason for paying divine honours and sacrificing to these godsas their creators, they will easily be disentangled also fromthis their error. For it is blasphemy to believe or to say(even before it can be understood) that any other than Godis creator of any nature, be it never so small and mortal.And as for the angels, whom those Platonists prefer to callgods, although they do, so far as they are permitted and commissioned, aid in the production of the things around us, yetnot on that account are we to call them creators, any morethan we call gardeners the creators of fruits and trees.25. That God alone is the Creator of every kind ofcreature, whatever itsnature orform.For whereas there is one form which is given from withoutto every bodily substance, such as the form which is constructed by potters and smiths, and that class of artists whopaint and fashion forms like the body of animals, —but another and internal form which is not itself constructed, but,as the efficient cause, produces not only the natural bodilyBOOK XII . ] GOD THE SOLE CREATOR. 517forms, but even the life itself of the living creatures, andwhich proceeds from the secret and hidden choice of an intelligent and living nature, —let that first-mentioned form beattributed to every artificer, but this latter to one only, God,the Creator and Originator who made the world itself and theangels, without the help of world or angels. For the samedivine and, so to speak, creative energy, which cannot bemade, but makes, and which gave to the earth and sky theirroundness, this same divine, effective, and creative energygave their roundness to the eye and to the apple; and theother natural objects which we anywhere see, received alsotheir form, not from without, but from the secret and profound might of the Creator, who said, " Do not I fill heavenand earth?" and whose wisdom it is that " reacheth fromone end to another mightily; and sweetly doth she order allthings. " Wherefore I know not what kind of aid the angels,themselves created first, afforded to the Creator in makingother things. I cannot ascribe to them what perhaps theycannot do, neither ought I to deny them such faculty asthey have. But, by their leave, I attribute the creating andoriginating work which gave being to all natures to God, towhom they themselves thankfully ascribe their existence.We do not call gardeners the creators of their fruits, for weread, " Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he thatwatereth, but God that giveth the increase. " Nay, not eventhe earth itself do we call a creator, though she seems to bethe prolific mother of all things which she aids in germinatingand bursting forth from the seed, and which she keeps rootedin her own breast; for we likewise read, " God giveth it abody, as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his ownbody. " 4 We ought not even to call a woman the creatressof her own offspring; for He rather is its creator who said toHis servant, " Before I formed thee in the womb, I knewthee." And although the various mental emotions of apregnant woman do produce in the fruit of her womb similarqualities, as Jacob with his peeled wands caused piebaldsheep to be produced, -yet the mother as little creates her"151 Jer. xxiii. 24.41 Cor. xv. 38.2 Wisdom viii. 1.5 Jer. i. 5.1 Cor. iii. 7.518 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XII. .offspring, as she created herself. Whatever bodily or seminalcauses, then, may be used for the production of things, eitherby the co-operation of angels, men, or the lower animals, orby sexual generation; and whatever power the desires andmental emotions of the mother have to produce in the tenderand plastic fœtus, corresponding lineaments and colours; yetthe natures themselves, which are thus variously affected, arethe production of none but the most high God. It is Hisoccult power which pervades all things, and is present in allwithout being contaminated, which gives being to all that is,and modifies and limits its existence; so that without Himit would not be thus or thus, nor would have any being atall.¹ If, then, in regard to that outward form which theworkman's hand imposes on his work, we do not say thatRome and Alexandria were built by masons and architects,but by the kings by whose will, plan, and resources they werebuilt, so that the one has Romulus, the other Alexander, forits founder; with how much greater reason ought we to saythat God alone is the Author of all natures, since He neitheruses for His work any material which was not made by Him,nor any workmen who were not also made by Him, andsince, if He were, so to speak, to withdraw from created thingsHis creative power, they would straightway relapse into thenothingness in which they were before they were created?" Before," I mean, in respect of eternity, not of time. Forwhat other creator could there be of time, than He whocreated those things whose movements make time??26. Ofthat opinion of the Platonists, that the angels were themselves indeedcreated by God, but that afterwards they created man's body.It is obvious, that in attributing the creation of the otheranimals to those inferior gods who were made by the Supreme,he meant it to be understood that the immortal part wastaken from God Himself, and that these minor creators addedthe mortal part; that is to say, he meant them to be considered the creators of our bodies, but not of our souls. Butsince Porphyry maintains that if the soul is to be purified,all entanglement with a body must be escaped from; andat the same time agrees with Plato and the Platonists in1' Compare de Trin. iii. 13-16. 2 See Book xi. 5.BOOK XII. ] ANGELS NOT CREATORS. 519thinking that those who have not spent a temperate andhonourable life return to mortal bodies as their punishment(to bodies of brutes in Plato's opinion, to human bodies inPorphyry's); it follows that those whom they would have usworship as our parents and authors, that they may plausiblycall them gods, are, after all, but the forgers of our fettersand chains, not our creators, but our jailers and turnkeys,who lock us up in the most bitter and melancholy house ofcorrection. Let the Platonists, then, either cease menacingus with our bodies as the punishment of our souls, or preaching that we are to worship as gods those whose work upon usthey exhort us by all means in our power to avoid and escapefrom. But, indeed, both opinions are quite false. It isfalse that souls return again to this life to be punished; andit is false that there is any other creator of anything inheaven or earth, than He who made the heaven and the earth.For if we live in a body only to expiate our sins, how saysPlato in another place, that the world could not have beenthe most beautiful and good, had it not been filled with allkinds of creatures, mortal and immortal? But if our creationeven as mortals be a divine benefit, how is it a punishmentto be restored to a body, that is, to a divine benefit? And ifGod, as Plato continually maintains, embraced in His eternalintelligence the ideas both of the universe and of all theanimals, how, then, should He not with His own hand makethem all? Could He be unwilling to be the constructor ofworks, the idea and plan of which called for His ineffableand ineffably to be praised intelligence?27. That the whole plenitude of the human race was embraced in the first man,and that God there saw the portion of it which was to be honoured andrewarded, and that which was to be condemned and punished.With good cause, therefore, does the true religion recogniseand proclaim that the same God who created the universalcosmos, created also all the animals, souls as well as bodies.Among the terrestrial animals man was made by Him in His1 "The Deity, desirous of making the universe in all respects resemble themost beautiful and entirely perfect of intelligible objects, formed it into onevisible animal, containing within itself all the other animals with which it isnaturally allied. "-Timæus, c. xi.520 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XII. .own image, and, for the reason I have given, was made oneindividual, though he was not left solitary. For there isnothing so social by nature, so unsocial by its corruption, asthis race. And human nature has nothing more appropriate,either for the prevention of discord, or for the healing of it,where it exists, than the remembrance of that first parent ofus all, whom God was pleased to create alone, that all menmight be derived from one, and that they might thus beadmonished to preserve unity among their whole multitude.But from the fact that the woman was made for him fromhis side, it was plainly meant that we should learn how dearthe bond between man and wife should be. These works ofGod do certainly seem extraordinary, because they are the firstworks. They who do not believe them, ought not to believeany prodigies; for these would not be called prodigies did theynot happen out of the ordinary course of nature. But, is itpossible that anything should happen in vain, however hiddenbe its cause, in so grand a government of divine providence?One of the sacred Psalmists says, " Come, behold the worksof the Lord, what prodigies He hath wrought in the earth.” ¹Why God made woman out of man's side, and what this firstprodigy prefigured, I shall, with God's help, tell in anotherplace. But at present, since this book must be concluded, letus merely say that in this first man, who was created in thebeginning, there was laid the foundation, not indeed evidently,but in God's foreknowledge, of these two cities or societies, sofar as regards the human race. For from that man all menwere to be derived-some of them to be associated with thegood angels in their reward, others with the wicked in punishment; all being ordered by the secret yet just judgment ofGod. For since it is written, " All the paths of the Lord aremercy and truth," 2 neither can His grace be unjust, nor Hisjustice cruel.1 Ps. xlvi. 8. 2 Ps. xxv. 10.BOOK XIII. ] THIE NATURE OF DEATH. 521BOOK THIRTEENTH.ARGUMENT.IN THIS BOOK IT IS TAUGHT THAT DEATH IS PENAL, AND HAD ITS ORIGIN IN ADAM'S SIN.1. Ofthe fall ofthe first man, through which mortality has been contracted.AVING disposed of the very difficult questions conHAcerning the origin of our world and the beginning ofthe human race, the natural order requires that we nowdiscuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the firstmen), and of the origin and propagation of human death.For God had not made man like the angels, in such acondition that, even though they had sinned, they could nonethe more die. He had so made them, that if they dischargedthe obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and ablessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention ofdeath; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited onthem with just sentence-which, too, has been spoken to inthe preceding book.2. Ofthat death which can affect an immortal soul, and of that to whichthe body is subject.But I see I must speak a little more carefully of thenature of death. For although the human soul is trulyaffirmed to be immortal, yet it also has a certain death ofits own. For it is therefore called immortal, because, in asense, it does not cease to live and to feel; while the body iscalled mortal, because it can be forsaken of all life, and cannotby itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul takes placewhen God forsakes it, as the death of the body when thesoul forsakes it. Therefore the death of both-that is, of thewhole man-occurs when the soul, forsaken by God, forsakesthe body. For, in this case, neither is God the life of thesoul, nor the soul the life of the body. And this death ofthe whole man is followed by that which, on the authority522 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XIII. .of the divine oracles, we call the second death. This theSaviour referred to when He said, " Fear Him which is ableto destroy both soul and body in hell." ¹ And since thisdoes not happen before the soul is so joined to its body thatthey cannot be separated at all, it may be matter of wonderhow the body can be said to be killed by that death in whichit is not forsaken by the soul, but, being animated and rendered sensitive by it, is tormented. For in that penal andeverlasting punishment, of which in its own place we are tospeak more at large, the soul is justly said to die, because itdoes not live in connection with God; but how can we saythat the body is dead, seeing that it lives by the soul? Forit could not otherwise feel the bodily torments which are tofollow the resurrection. Is it because life of every kind isgood, and pain an evil, that we decline to say that that bodylives, in which the soul is the cause, not of life, but of pain?The soul, then, lives by God when it lives well, for it cannotlive well unless by God working in it what is good; and thebody lives by the soul when the soul lives in the body,whether itself be living by God or no. For the wicked man'slife in the body is a life not of the soul, but of the body,which even dead souls-that is, souls forsaken of God-canconfer upon bodies, how little soever of their own proper life,by which they are immortal, they retain. But in the lastdamnation, though man does not cease to feel, yet becausethis feeling of his is neither sweet with pleasure nor wholesome with repose, but painfully penal, it is not without reasoncalled death rather than life. And it is called the seconddeath because it follows the first, which sunders the twocohering essences, whether these be God and the soul, orthe soul and the body. Of the first and bodily death, then,we may say that to the good it is good, and evil to the evil.But, doubtless, the second, as it happens to none of the good,so it can be good for none.3. Whether death, which by the sin ofour first parents has passed upon allmen, is the punishment oj sin, even to the good.But a question not to be shirked arises: Whether in verytruth death, which separates soul and body, is good to the1 Matt. x. 28.BOOK XIII . ] OF SIN AND DEATH. 523good? For if it be, how has it come to pass that such athing should be the punishment of sin? For the first menwould not have suffered death had they not sinned. How,then, can that be good to the good, which could not havehappened except to the evil? Then, again, if it could onlyhappen to the evil, to the good it ought not to be good, butnon-existent. For why should there be any punishment wherethere is nothing to punish? Wherefore we must say that thefirst men were indeed so created, that if they had not sinned,they would not have experienced any kind of death; but that,having become sinners, they were so punished with death, thatwhatsoever sprang from their stock should also be punishedwith the same death. For nothing else could be born of themthan that which they themselves had been. Their nature wasdeteriorated in proportion to the greatness of the condemnation of their sin, so that what existed as punishment in thosewho first sinned, became a natural consequence in their children. For man is not produced by man, as he was from thedust. For dust was the material out of which man wasmade: man is the parent by whom man is begotten. Wherefore earth and flesh are not the same thing, though flesh bemade of earth. But as man the parent is, such is man theoffspring. In the first man, therefore, there existed the wholehuman nature, which was to be transmitted by the womanto posterity, when that conjugal union received the divinesentence of its own condemnation; and what man was made,not when created, but when he sinned and was punished, thishe propagated, so far as the origin of sin and death are concerned. For neither by sin nor its punishment was he himself reduced to that infantine and helpless infirmity of bodyand mind which we see in children. For God ordained thatinfants should begin the world as the young of beasts beginit, since their parents had fallen to the level of the beasts inthe fashion of their life and of their death; as it is written," Man when he was in honour understood not; he becamelike the beasts that have no understanding." Nay more," 21 On this question compare the 24th and 25th epistles of Jerome, de obitu Lea, and de obitu Blesillæ filiæ. Coquæus.2 Ps. xlix. 12.524 THE CITY OF GOD [ BOOK XIII. .infants, we see, are even feebler in the use and movement oftheir limbs, and more infirm to choose and refuse, than themost tender offspring of other animals; as if the force thatdwells in human nature were destined to surpass all otherliving things so much the more eminently, as its energy hasbeen longer restrained, and the time of its exercise delayed,just as an arrow flies the higher the further back it has beendrawn. To this infantine imbecility¹ the first man did notfall by his lawless presumption and just sentence; but humannature was in his person vitiated and altered to such anextent, that he suffered in his members the warring of disobedient lust, and became subject to the necessity of dying.And what he himself had become by sin and punishment,such he generated those whom he begot; that is to say, subject to sin and death. And if infants are delivered from thisbondage of sin by the Redeemer's grace, they can suffer onlythis death which separates soul and body; but being redeemedfrom the obligation of sin, they do not pass to that secondendless and penal death.4. Why death, the punishment ofsin, is not withheld from those who by the grace ofregeneration are absolved from sin.If, moreover, any one is solicitous about this point, how, ifdeath be the very punishment of sin, they whose guilt is cancelled by grace do yet suffer death, this difficulty has alreadybeen handled and solved in our other work which we havewritten on the baptism of infants. There it was said that theparting of soul and body was left, though its connection withsin was removed, for this reason, that if the immortality ofthe body followed immediately upon the sacrament of regeneration, faith itself would be thereby enervated. For faith isthen only faith when it waits in hope for what is not yet seen.in substance. And bythe vigour and conflict of faith, at leastin times past, was the fear of death overcome. Specially wasthis conspicuous in the holy martyrs, who could have had novictory, no glory, to whom there could not even have been anyconflict, if, after the laver of regeneration, saints could not suffer1 On which see further in de Peccat. Mer. i . 67 et seq..De Baptismo Parvulorum is the second half of the title of the book, de Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione.BOOK XIII . ] WHY THE REGENERATE DIE. 525bodily death. Who would not, then, in company with theinfants presented for baptism, run to the grace of Christ, thatso he might not be dismissed from the body? And thus faithwould not be tested with an unseen reward; and so wouldnot even be faith, seeking and receiving an immediate recompense of its works.But now, by the greater and more admirable grace of the Saviour, the punishment of sin is turnedto the service of righteousness. For then it was proclaimedto man, " If thou sinnest, thou shalt die; " now it is said tothe martyr, " Die, that thou sin not." Then it was said, " Ifye transgress the commandments, ye shall die;" now it is.said, " If ye decline death, ye transgress the commandment."That which was formerly set as an object of terror, that menmight not sin, is now to be undergone if we would not sin.Thus, by the unutterable mercy of God, even the very punishment of wickedness has become the armour of virtue, and thepenalty of the sinner becomes the reward of the righteous.For then death was incurred by sinning, now righteousness isfulfilled by dying. In the case of the holy martyrs it is so;for to them the persecutor proposes the alternative, apostasyor death. For the righteous prefer by believing to suffer whatthe first transgressors suffered by not believing. For unlessthey had sinned, they would not have died; but the martyrssin if they do not die. The one died because they sinned, theothers do not sin because they die. By the guilt of the first,punishment was incurred; by the punishment of the second,guilt is prevented. Not that death, which was before an evil,has become something good, but only that God has granted tofaith this grace, that death, which is the admitted opposite tolife, should become the instrument by which life is reached.5. As the wicked make an ill use ofthe law, which is good, so the good makea good use ofdeath, which is an ill.The apostle, wishing to show how hurtful a thing sin is,when grace does not aid us, has not hesitated to say that thestrength of sin is that very law by which sin is prohibited."The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law."1Most certainly true; for prohibition increases the desire ofillicit action, if righteousness is not so loved that the desire of11 Cor. xv. 56.526 THE [BOOK XIIL CITY OF GOD.sin is conquered by that love. But unless divine grace aidus, we cannot love nor delight in true righteousness. But lestthe law should be thought to be an evil, since it is called thestrength of sin, the apostle, when treating a similar question inanother place, says, " The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is holymade death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sinby the commandment might become exceeding sinful"¹ Exceeding, he says, because the transgression is more heinous whenthrough the increasing lust of sin the law itself also is despised.Why have we thought it worth while to mention this? Forthis reason, because, as the law is not an evil when it increasesthe lust of those who sin, so neither is death a good thingwhen it increases the glory of those who suffer it, since eitherthe former is abandoned wickedly, and makes transgressors, orthe latter is embraced for the truth's sake, and makes martyrs.And thus the law is indeed good, because it is prohibition ofsin, and death is evil because it is the wages of sin; but aswicked men make an evil use not only of evil, but also of goodthings, so the righteous make a good use not only of good, butalso of evil things. Whence it comes to pass that the wickedmake an ill use of the law, though the law is good; and thatthe good die well, though death is an evil.6. Ofthe evil of death in general, considered as the separation ofsoul and body.Wherefore, as regards bodily death, that is, the separationof the soul from the body, it is good unto none while it isbeing endured by those whom we say are in the article ofdeath. For the very violence with which body and soul arewrenched asunder, which in the living had been conjoinedand closely intertwined, brings with it a harsh experience,jarring horridly on nature so long as it continues, till therecomes a total loss of sensation, which arose from the veryinterpenetration of spirit and flesh. And all this anguish issometimes forestalled by one stroke of the body or suddenflitting of the soul, the swiftness of which prevents it frombeing felt. But whatever that may be in the dying which1 Rom. vii. 12, 13.BOOK XIII. ] DEATH OF THE UNBAPTIZED. 527with violently painful sensation robs of all sensation, yet, whenit is piously and faithfully borne, it increases the merit ofpatience, but does not make the name of punishment inapplicable. Death, proceeding by ordinary generation from thefirst man, is the punishment of all who are born of him, yet,if it be endured for righteousness' sake, it becomes the gloryof those who are born again; and though death be the awardof sin, it sometimes secures that nothing be awarded to sin.2""7. Ofthe death which the unbaptized¹ suffer for the confession ofChrist.For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, thisconfession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins asif they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For Hewho said, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favour, in that other sentence where He noless absolutely said, " Whosoever shall confess me before men,him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;and in another place, " Whosoever will lose his life for mysake, shall find it." And this explains the verse, " Preciousin the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. " 5 Forwhat is more precious than a death by which a man's sins areall forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? Forthose who have been baptized when they could no longerescape death, and have departed this life with all their sinsblotted out, have not equal merit with those who did notdefer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than bydenying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And evenhad they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, thistoo would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in whichwas remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who hadslain Christ. But how abundant in these men must havebeen the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He listeth,seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to denyHim even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hopeof pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to1 Literally, unregenerate. Matt. x. 32.4 Matt. xvi. 25.2 John iii. 5.Ps. cxvi. 15.528 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XIII. .whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such graciouseffects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, ifso be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, becauseit has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richerharvest of righteousness. But not on this account should welook upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to suchuseful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by thedivine interference. Death was originally proposed as anobject of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it mustbe undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed,be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on himwhose victory has earned it.8. Thatthe saints, by suffering the first deathfor the truth's sake, are freed from the second.For if we look at the matter a little more carefully, we shallsee that even when a man dies faithfully and laudably for thetruth's sake, it is still death he is avoiding. For he submitsto some part of death, for the very purpose of avoiding thewhole, and the second and eternal death over and above. Hesubmits to the separation of soul and body, lest the soul beseparated both from God and from the body, and so the wholefirst death be completed, and the second death receive himeverlastingly. Wherefore death is indeed, as I said, good tonone while it is being actually suffered, and while it is subduing the dying to its power; but it is meritoriously enduredfor the sake of retaining or winning what is good. And regarding what happens after death, it is no absurdity to saythat death is good to the good, and evil to the evil. For thedisembodied spirits of the just are at rest; but those of thewicked suffer punishment till their bodies rise again,-those ofthe just to life everlasting, and of the others to death eternal,which is called the second death.9. Whether we should say that the moment of death, in which sensation ceases,occurs in the experience ofthe dying or in that ofthe dead.The point of time in which the souls of the good and evilare separated from the body, are we to say it is after death, orin death rather? If it is after death, then it is not deathwhich is good or evil, since death is done with and past, butBOOK XIII. ] LIFE A GRADUAL DEATH. 529it is the life which the soul has now entered on. Death wasan evil when it was present, that is to say, when it was beingsuffered by the dying; for to them it brought with it a severeand grievous experience, which the good make a good use of.But when death is past, how can that which no longer is beeither good or evil? Still further, if we examine the mattermore closely, we shall see that even that sore and grievouspain which the dying experience is not death itself. For solong as they have any sensation, they are certainly still alive;and, if still alive, must rather be said to be in a state previousto death than in death. For when death actually comes, itrobs us of all bodily sensation, which, while death is only approaching, is painful. And thus it is difficult to explain howwe speak of those who are not yet dead, but are agonized intheir last and mortal extremity, as being in the article ofdeath. Yet what else can we call them than dying persons?for when death which was imminent shall have actually come,we can no longer call them dying but dead. No one, therefore, is dying unless living; since even he who is in the lastextremity of life, and, as we say, giving up the ghost, yet lives.The same person is therefore at once dying and living, butdrawing near to death, departing from life; yet in life, becausehis spirit yet abides in the body; not yet in death, becausenot yet has his spirit forsaken the body. But if, when it hasforsaken it, the man is not even then in death, but after death,who shall say when he is in death? On the one hand, no onecan be called dying, if a man cannot be dying and living atthe same time; and as long as the soul is in the body, wecannot deny that he is living. On the other hand, if the manwho is approaching death be rather called dying, I know notwho is living.10. Ofthe life ofmortals, which is rather to be called death than life.For no sooner do we begin to live in this dying body, thanwe begin to move ceaselessly towards death.¹ For in the1 Much of this paradoxical statement about death is taken from Seneca. See,among other places, his epistle on the premeditation of future dangers, thepassage beginning, Quotidie morimur, quotidie enim demitur aliqua pars vitæ. "VOL. I.662 L530 THE [BOOK XIII.CITY OF GOD.He,whole course of this life (if life we must call it) its mutabilitytends towards death. Certainly there is no one who is notnearer it this year than last year, and to-morrow than to-day,and to-day than yesterday, and a short while hence than now,and now than a short while ago. For whatever time we liveis deducted from our whole term of life, and that whichremains is daily becoming less and less; so that our wholelife is nothing but a race towards death, in which no one isallowed to stand still for a little space, or to go somewhatmore slowly, but all are driven forwards with an impartialmovement, and with equal rapidity. For he whose life is shortspends a day no more swiftly than he whose life is longer.But while the equal moments are impartially snatched fromboth, the one has a nearer and the other a more remote goalto reach with this their equal speed. It is one thing to makea longer journey, and another to walk more slowly.therefore, who spends longer time on his way to death doesnot proceed at a more leisurely pace, but goes over moreground. Further, if every man begins to die, that is, is indeath, as soon as death has begun to show itself in him (bytaking away life, to wit; for when life is all taken away, theman will be then not in death, but after death), then he beginsto die so soon as he begins to live. For what else is goingon in all his days, hours, and moments, until this slow-working death is fully consummated? And then comes the timeafter death, instead of that in which life was being withdrawn,and which we called being in death. Man, then, is never inlife from the moment he dwells in this dying rather thanliving body,-if, at least, he cannot be in life and death atonce. Or rather, shall we say, he is in both?-in life,namely, which he lives till all is consumed; but in deathalso, which he dies as his life is consumed? For if he is notin life, what is it which is consumed till all be gone? Andif he is not in death, what is this consumption itself? Forwhen the whole of life has been consumed, the expression"after death" would be meaningless, had that consumptionnot been death. And if, when it has all been consumed, aman is not in death but after death, when is he in death,unless when life is being consumed away?BOOK XIII. ] OF THE MOMENT OF DYING. 53111. Whether one can both be living and dead at the same time.But if it is absurd to say that a man is in death before hereaches death (for to what is his course running as he passesthrough life, if already he is in death? ), and if it outragecommon usage to speak of a man being at once alive anddead, as much as it does so, to speak of him as at once asleepand awake, it remains to be asked when a man is dying?For, before death comes, he is not dying but living; andwhen death has come, he is not dying but dead.The one isbefore, the other after death. When, then, is he in death sothat we can say he is dying? For as there are three times,before death, in death, after death, so there are three statescorresponding, living, dying, dead. And it is very hard todefine when a man is in death or dying, when he is neitherliving, which is before death, nor dead, which is after death,but dying, which is in death. For so long as the soul is inthe body, especially if consciousness remain, the man certainlylives; for body and soul constitute the man.And thus,before death, he cannot be said to be in death; but when,on the other hand, the soul has departed, and all bodilysensation is extinct, death is past, and the man is dead.Between these two states the dying condition finds no place;for if a man yet lives, death has not arrived; if he has ceasedto live, death is past. Never, then, is he dying, that is, comprehended in the state of death. So also in the passing oftime, you try to lay your finger on the present, and cannotfind it, because the present occupies no space, but is onlythe transition of time from the future to the past.Must wethen conclude that there is thus no death of the body at all?For if there is, where is it, since it is in no one, and no onecan be in it? Since, indeed, if there is yet life, death is notyet; for this state is before death, not in death: and if lifehas already ceased, death is not present; for this state isafter death, not in death. On the other hand, if there isno death before or after, what do we mean when we say"after death," or " before death?" This is a foolish wayof speaking if there is no death. And would that we hadlived so well in Paradise that in very truth there were nowno death! But not only does it now exist, but so grievous532 [BOOK XIIL THE CITY OF GOD.a thing is it, that no skill is sufficient either to explain or toescape it." 2Let us, then, speak in the customary way,-no man oughtto speak otherwise, and let us call the time before deathcome, " before death; " as it is written, " Praise no man beforehis death. "1 And when it has happened, let us say that"after death" this or that took place. And of the presenttime let us speak as best we can, as when we say, “ He,when dying, made his will, and left this or that to such andsuch persons," though, of course, he could not do so unlesshe were living, and did this rather before death than in death.And let us use the same phraseology as Scripture uses; for itmakes no scruple of saying that the dead are not after but indeath. So that verse, " For in death there is no remembranceof thee. " For until the resurrection men are justly said tobe in death; as every one is said to be in sleep till heawakes. However, though we can say of persons in sleepthat they are sleeping, we cannot speak in this way of thedead, and say they are dying. For, so far as regards thedeath of the body, of which we are now speaking, one cannotsay that those who are already separated from their bodiescontinue dying. But this, you see, is just what I was saying,-that no words can explain how either the dying are said.to live, or how the dead are said, even after death, to be indeath. For how can they be after death if they be in death,especially when we do not even call them dying, as we callthose in sleep, sleeping; and those in languor, languishing;and those in grief, grieving; and those in life, living? Andyet the dead, until they rise again, are said to be in death,but cannot be called dying.And therefore I think it has not unsuitably nor inappropriately come to pass, though not by the intention of man,yet perhaps with divine purpose, that this Latin wordmoritur cannot be declined by the grammarians according tothe rule followed by similar words. For oritur gives theform ortus est for the perfect; and all similar verbs formthis tense from their perfect participles. But if we askthe perfect of moritur, we get the regular answer, mortuus1 Ecclus. xi. 28. 2 Ps. vi. 5.BOOK XIII. ] WHAT DEATH GOD THREATENED. 533est with a double u. For thus mortuus is pronounced, likefatuus, arduus, conspicuus, and similar words, which are notperfect participles but adjectives, and are declined withoutregard to tense. But mortuus, though in form an adjective,is used as perfect participle, as if that were to be declinedwhich cannot be declined; and thus it has suitably cometo pass that, as the thing itself cannot in point of fact bedeclined, so neither can the word significant of the act bedeclined. Yet, by the aid of our Redeemer's grace, we maymanage at least to decline the second. For that is moregrievous still, and, indeed, of all evils the worst, since it consists not in the separation of soul and body, but in the unitingof both in death eternal. And there, in striking contrast toour present conditions, men will not be before or after death,but always in death; and thus never living, never dead, butendlessly dying. And never can a man be more disastrouslyin death than when death itself shall be deathless..12. What death God intended, when He threatened our first parents with deathif they should disobey His commandment.-When, therefore, it is asked what death it was with whichGod threatened our first parents if they should transgressthe commandment they had received from Him, and shouldfail to preserve their obedience,-whether it was the deathof soul, or of body, or of the whole man, or that which iscalled second death, we must answer, It is all. For thefirst consists of two; the second is the complete death, whichconsists of all. For, as the whole earth consists of manylands, and the Church universal of many churches, so deathuniversal consists of all deaths. The first consists of two,one of the body, and another of the soul. So that the firstdeath is a death of the whole man, since the soul withoutGod and without the body suffers punishment for a time;but the second is when the soul, without God but with thebody, suffers punishment everlasting. When, therefore, Godsaid to that first man whom he had placed in Paradise, referring to the forbidden fruit, " In the day that thou eatestthereof thou shalt surely die," that threatening included notonly the first part of the first death, by which the soul is1 Gen. ii. 17.534 THE CITY OF GOD. [ BOOK XIII.deprived of God; nor only the subsequent part of the firstdeath, by which the body is deprived of the soul; nor onlythe whole first death itself, by which the soul is punished inseparation from God and from the body;-but it includeswhatever of death there is, even to that final death which iscalled second, and to which none is subsequent.13. What was the first punishment of the transgression ofour first parents?For, as soon as our first parents had transgressed the commandment, divine grace forsook them, and they were confounded at their own wickedness; and therefore they tookfig-leaves (which were possibly the first that came to hand intheir troubled state of mind) , and covered their shame; forthough their members remained the same, they had shamenow where they had none before. They experienced a newmotion of their flesh, which had become disobedient to them,in strict retribution of their own disobedience to God. Forthe soul, revelling in its own liberty, and scorning to serveGod, was itself deprived of the command it had formerlymaintained over the body. And because it had wilfullydeserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferiorservant; neither could it hold the flesh subject, as it wouldalways have been able to do had it remained itself subject toGod. Then began the flesh to lust against the Spirit, inwhich strife we are born, deriving from the first transgressiona seed of death, and bearing in our members, and in ourvitiated nature, the contest or even victory of the flesh.14. In what state man was made by God, and into what estate hefell by thechoice of his own will.For God, the author of natures, not of vices, created manupright; but man, being of his own will corrupted, and justlycondemned, begot corrupted and condemned children. Forwe all were in that one man, since we all were that one manwho fell into sin by the woman who was made from himbefore the sin. For not yet was the particular form createdand distributed to us, in which we as individuals were tolive, but already the seminal nature was there from which1 Gal. v. 17.BOOK XIII. ] THE DEATH WHICH ADAM DIED. 535we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, andbound by the chain of death, and justly condemned, man couldnot be born of man in any other state. And thus, from thebad use of free will, there originated the whole train of evil,which, with its concatenation of miseries, convoys the humanrace from its depraved origin, as from a corrupt root, on to thedestruction of the second death, which has no end, those onlybeing excepted who are freed by the grace of God.15. That Adam in his sinforsook God ere God forsook him, and that hisfalling awayfrom God was the first death ofthe soul.It may perhaps be supposed that because God said, " Yeshall die the death," and not " deaths," we should understandonly that death which occurs when the soul is deserted byGod, who is its life; for it was not deserted by God, and sodeserted Him, but deserted Him, and so was deserted by Him.For its own will was the originator of its evil, as God wasthe originator of its motions towards good, both in making it .when it was not, and in re-making it when it had fallen andperished. But though we suppose that God meant only thisdeath, and that the words, " In the day ye eat of it ye shalldie the death," should be understood as meaning, " In the dayye desert me in disobedience, I will desert you in justice," yetassuredly in this death the other deaths also were threatened,which were its inevitable consequence. For in the first stirringof the disobedient motion which was felt in the flesh of thedisobedient soul, and which caused our first parents to covertheir shame, one death indeed is experienced, that, namely,which occurs when God forsakes the soul. (This was intimated by the words He uttered, when the man, stupefied byfear, had hid himself, " Adam, where art thou? " -wordswhich He used not in ignorance of inquiry, but warning himto consider where he was, since God was not with him. ) Butwhen the soul itself forsook the body, corrupted and decayedwith age, the other death was experienced of which God hadspoken in pronouncing man's sentence, " Earth thou art, andunto earth shalt thou return. " 3 And of these two deaths thatfirst death of the whole man is composed. And this first death¹ Gen. ii. 17. 2 Gen. iii. 9. 3 Gen. i.i. 19.536 [BOOK XIII.THE CITY OF GOD.is finally followed by the second, unless man be freed by grace.For the body would not return to the earth from which it wasmade, save only by the death proper to itself, which occurswhen it is forsaken of the soul, its life. And therefore it isagreed among all Christians who truthfully hold the catholicfaith, that we are subject to the death of the body, not by thelaw of nature, by which God ordained no death for man, butby His righteous infliction on account of sin; for God, takingvengeance on sin, said to the man, in whom we all then were," Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."16. Concerning the philosophers who think that the separation of soul and bodyis not penal, though Plato represents the supreme Deity as promising tothe inferior gods that they shall never be dismissed from their bodies.But the philosophers against whom we are defending thecity of God, that is, His Church, seem to themselves to havegood cause to deride us, because we say that the separation of thesoul from the body is to be held as part of man's punishment.For they suppose that the blessedness of the soul then only iscomplete, when it is quite denuded of the body, and returns toGod a pure and simple, and, as it were, naked soul. On thispoint, if I should find nothing in their own literature to refutethis opinion, I should be forced laboriously to demonstrate thatit is not the body, but the corruptibility of the body, which isa burden to the soul. Hence that sentence of Scripture wequoted in a foregoing book, " For the corruptible body pressethdown the soul. " 1 The word corruptible is added to show thatthe soul is burdened, not by any body whatsoever, but by thebody such as it has become in consequence of sin.And eventhough the word had not been added, we could understandnothing else. But when Plato most expressly declares thatthe gods who are made by the Supreme have immortal bodies,and when he introduces their Maker himself promising themas a great boon that they should abide in their bodies eternally,and never by any death be loosed from them, why do theseadversaries of ours, for the sake of troubling the Christianfaith, feign to be ignorant of what they quite well know, andeven prefer to contradict themselves rather than lose an opportunity of contradicting us? Here are Plato's words, as Cicero1 Wisdom ix. 15.BOOK XIII. ] THEORY THAT DEATH IS NOT PENAL. 537has translated them,' in which he introduces the Supremeaddressing the gods He had made, and saying, " Ye who aresprung from a divine stock, consider of what works I am theparent and author. These (your bodies) are indestructibleso long as I will it; although all that is composed can bedestroyed. But it is wicked to dissolve what reason hascompacted. But, seeing that ye have been born, ye cannotindeed be immortal and indestructible; yet ye shall by nomeans be destroyed, nor shall any fates consign you to death,and prove superior to my will, which is a stronger assuranceof your perpetuity than those bodies to which ye were joinedwhen ye were born." Plato, you see, says that the gods areboth mortal by the connection of the body and soul, and yetare rendered immortal by the will and decree of their Maker.If, therefore, it is a punishment to the soul to be connected.with any body whatever, why does God address them as ifthey were afraid of death, that is, of the separation of soul andbody? Why does He seek to reassure them by promisingthem immortality, not in virtue of their nature, which iscomposite and not simple, but by virtue of His invinciblewill, whereby He can effect that neither things born die, northings compounded be dissolved, but preserved eternally?Whether this opinion of Plato's about the stars is true ornot, is another question. For we cannot at once grant to himthat these luminous bodies or globes, which by day and nightshine on the earth with the light of their bodily substance,have also intellectual and blessed souls which animate eachits own body, as he confidently affirms of the universe itself,as if it were one huge animal, in which all other animals werecontained. But this, as I said, is another question, which we1 A translation of part of the Timæus, given in a little book of Cicero's, De Universo.2 Plato, in the Timæus, represents the Demiurgus as constructing the kosmosor universe to be a complete representation on the idea of animal. He plantedin its centre a soul, spreading outwards so as to pervade the whole body of thekosmos; and then he introduced into it those various species of animals whichwere contained in the idea of animal. Among these animals stand first thecelestial, the gods embodied in the stars; and of these the oldest is the earth, setin the centre of all, close packed round the great axis which traverses the centreof the kosmos. See the Timæus and Grote's Plato, iii . 250 et seq.538 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XIII. .have not undertaken to discuss at present. This much onlyI deemed right to bring forward, in opposition to those who sopride themselves on being, or on being called Platonists, thatthey blush to be Christians, and who cannot brook to be calledby a name which the common people also bear, lest theyvulgarize the philosophers' coterie, which is proud in proportionto its exclusiveness. These men, seeking a weak point in theChristian doctrine, select for attack the eternity of the body,as if it were a contradiction to contend for the blessedness ofthe soul, and to wish it to be always resident in the body,bound, as it were, in a lamentable chain; and this althoughPlato, their own founder and master, affirms that it was grantedby the Supreme as a boon to the gods He had made, thatthey should not die, that is, should not be separated from thebodies with which He had connected them.17. Against those who affirm that earthly bodies cannot be made incorruptible and eternal.These same philosophers further contend that terrestrialbodies cannot be eternal, though they make no doubt that thewhole earth, which is itself the central member of their god,-not, indeed, of the greatest, but yet of a great god, that is, ofthis whole world, is eternal. Since, then, the Supreme madefor them another god, that is, this world, superior to the othergods beneath Him; and since they suppose that this god is ananimal, having, as they affirm, a rational or intellectual soulenclosed in the huge mass of its body, and having, as the fitlysituated and adjusted members of its body, the four elements,whose union they wish to be indissoluble and eternal, lestperchance this great god of theirs might some day perish;what reason is there that the earth, which is the centralmember in the body of a greater creature, should be eternal,and the bodies of other terrestrial creatures should not possiblybe eternal if God should so will it? But earth, say they, mustreturn to earth, out of which the terrestrial bodies of theanimals have been taken. For this, they say, is the reasonof the necessity of their death and dissolution, and this themanner of their restoration to the solid and eternal earthwhence they came. But if any one says the same thing offire, holding that the bodies which are derived from it to makeBOOK XIII. ] ETERNITY OF THE BODY. 539celestial beings must be restored to the universal fire, doesnot the immortality which Plato represents these gods asreceiving from the Supreme evanesce in the heat of thisdispute? Or does this not happen with those celestialsbecause God, whose will, as Plato says, overpowers all powers,has willed it should not be so? What, then, hinders God fromordaining the same of terrestrial bodies? And since, indeed,Plato acknowledges that God can prevent things that are bornfrom dying, and things that are joined from being sundered,and things that are composed from being dissolved, and canordain that the souls once allotted to their bodies should neverabandon them, but enjoy along with them immortality andeverlasting bliss, why may He not also effect that terrestrialbodies die not? Is God powerless to do everything that isspecial to the Christian's creed, but powerful to effect everything the Platonists desire? The philosophers, forsooth, havebeen admitted to a knowledge of the divine purposes andpower which has been denied to the prophets! The truth is,that the Spirit of God taught His prophets so much of Hiswill as He thought fit to reveal, but the philosophers, in theirefforts to discover it, were deceived by human conjecture.But they should not have been so led astray, I will not sayby their ignorance, but by their obstinacy, as to contradictthemselves so frequently; for they maintain, with all theirvaunted might, that in order to the happiness of the soul, itmust abandon not only its earthly body, but every kind ofbody. And yet they hold that the gods, whose souls are mostblessed, are bound to everlasting bodies, the celestials to fierybodies, and the soul of Jove himself (or this world, as theywould have us believe) to all the physical elements whichcompose this entire mass reaching from earth to heaven. Forthis soul Plato believes to be extended and diffused by musicalnumbers,' from the middle of the inside of the earth, whichgeometricians call the centre, outwards through all its partsto the utmost heights and extremities of the heavens; so thatthis world is a very great and blessed immortal animal, whosesoul has both the perfect blessedness of wisdom, and neverleaves its own body, and whose body has life everlasting1 On these numbers see Grote's Plato, iii . 254.540 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XIII. .from the soul, and by no means clogs or hinders it, thoughitself be not a simple body, but compacted of so many and sohuge materials. Since, therefore, they allow so much to theirown conjectures, why do they refuse to believe that by thedivine will and power immortality can be conferred on earthlybodies, in which the souls would be neither oppressed withthe burden of them, nor separated from them by any death,but live eternally and blessedly? Do they not assert thattheir own gods so live in bodies of fire, and that Jove himself,their king, so lives in the physical elements? If, in order toits blessedness, the soul must quit every kind of body, lettheir gods flit from the starry spheres, and Jupiter from earthto sky; or, if they cannot do so, let them be pronouncedmiserable. But neither alternative will these men adopt. For,on the one hand, they dare not ascribe to their own gods adeparture from the body, lest they should seem to worshipmortals; on the other hand, they dare not deny their happiness, lest they should acknowledge wretches as gods. Therefore, to obtain blessedness, we need not quit every kind ofbody, but only the corruptible, cumbersome, painful, dying,—not such bodies as the goodness of God contrived for the firstman, but such only as man's sin entailed.18. Of earthly bodies, which the philosophers affirm cannot be in heavenly places,because whatever is ofearth is by its natural weight attracted to earth.But it is necessary, they say, that the natural weight ofearthly bodies either keep them on earth or draw them to it;and therefore they cannot be in heaven. Our first parentswere indeed on earth, in a well-wooded and fruitful spot,which has been named Paradise. But let our adversaries alittle more carefully consider this subject of earthly weight,because it has important bearings, both on the ascension ofthe body of Christ, and also on the resurrection body of thesaints. If human skill can by some contrivance fabricatevessels that float, out of metals which sink as soon as theyare placed on the water, how much more credible is it thatGod, by some occult mode of operation, should even morecertainly effect that these earthy masses be emancipated fromthe downward pressure of their weight? This cannot be impossible to that God by whose almighty will, according toBOOK XIII. ] THEORY THAT ALL BODIES ARE CLOGS. 541Plato, neither things born perish, nor things composed dissolve,especially since it is much more wonderful that spiritual andbodily essences be conjoined than that bodies be adjusted toother material substances. Can we not also easily believethat souls, being made perfectly blessed, should be endowedwith the power of moving their earthy but incorruptiblebodies as they please, with almost spontaneous movement,and of placing them where they please with the readiestaction? If the angels transport whatever terrestrial creaturesthey please from any place they please, and convey themwhither they please, is it to be believed that they cannot doso without toil and the feeling of burden? Why, then, maywe not believe that the spirits of the saints, made perfect andblessed by divine grace, can carry their own bodies wherethey please, and set them where they will? For, though wehave been accustomed to notice, in bearing weights, that thelarger the quantity the greater the weight of earthy bodies is,and that the greater the weight the more burdensome it is,yet the soul carries the members of its own flesh with lessdifficulty when they are massive with health, than in sicknesswhen they are wasted. And though the hale and strong manfeels heavier to other men carrying him than the lank andsickly, yet the man himself moves and carries his own bodywith less feeling of burden when he has the greater bulk ofvigorous health, than when his frame is reduced to a minimumby hunger or disease. Of such consequence, in estimating theweight of earthly bodies, even while yet corruptible and mortal,is the consideration not of dead weight, but of the healthyequilibrium of the parts. And what words can tell the difference between what we now call health and future immortality? Let not the philosophers, then, think to upset ourfaith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don'tcare to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body canbe in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing.For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the samelaw that attracts to its centre all heavy bodies. But this Isay, if the lesser gods, to whom Plato committed the creationof man and the other terrestrial creatures, were able, as heaffirms, to withdraw from the fire its quality of burning, while542 [ BOOK XIII. THE CITY OF GOD.they left it that of lighting, so that it should shine throughthe eyes; and if to the supreme God Plato also concedes thepower of preserving from death things that have been born,and of preserving from dissolution things that are composedof parts so different as body and spirit;—are we to hesitate toconcede to this same God the power to operate on the flesh ofhim whom He has endowed with immortality, so as to withdraw its corruption but leave its nature, remove its burdensome weight but retain its seemly form and members? Butconcerning our belief in the resurrection of the dead, andconcerning their immortal bodies, we shall speak more atlarge, God willing, in the end of this work.19. Against the opinion of those who do not believe that the primitive men wouldhave been immortal if they had not sinned.At present let us go on, as we have begun, to give someexplanation regarding the bodies of our first parents. I saythen, that, except as the just consequence of sin, they wouldnot have been subjected even to this death, which is good tothe good, this death, which is not exclusively known andbelieved in by a few, but is known to all, by which soul andbody are separated, and by which the body of an animalwhich was but now visibly living is now visibly dead. Forthough there can be no manner of doubt that the souls of thejust and holy dead live in peaceful rest, yet so much betterwould it be for them to be alive in healthy, well- conditionedbodies, that even those who hold the tenet that it is mostblessed to be quit of every kind of body, condemn this opinionin spite of themselves. For no one will dare to set wise men,whether yet to die or already dead,-in other words, whetheralready quit of the body, or shortly to be so, -above the immortal gods, to whom the Supreme, in Plato, promises as amunificent gift life indissoluble, or in eternal union with theirbodies. But this same Plato thinks that nothing better canhappen to men than that they pass through life piously andjustly, and, being separated from their bodies, be receivedinto the bosom of the gods, who never abandon theirs; " that,oblivious of the past, they may revisit the upper air, andconceive the longing to return again to the body. " Virgil1 Virgil, Eneid, vi. 750, 751.BOOK XIII. ] DEATH NOT NATURALLY A NECESSITY. 543is applauded for borrowing this from the Platonic system.Assuredly Plato thinks that the souls of mortals cannotalways be in their bodies, but must necessarily be dismissedby death; and, on the other hand, he thinks that withoutbodies they cannot endure for ever, but with ceaseless alternation pass from life to death, and from death to life. Thisdifference, however, he sets between wise men and the rest,that they are carried after death to the stars, that each manmay repose for a while in a star suitable for him, and maythence return to the labours and miseries of mortals when hehas become oblivious of his former misery, and possessed withthe desire of being embodied. Those, again, who have livedfoolishly transmigrate into bodies fit for them, whether humanor bestial Thus he has appointed even the good and wisesouls to a very hard lot indeed, since they do not receivesuch bodies as they might always and even immortally inhabit, but such only as they can neither permanently retainnor enjoy eternal purity without. Of this notion of Plato's,we have in a former book already said' that Porphyry wasashamed in the light of these Christian times, so that he notonly emancipated human souls from a destiny in the bodies ofbeasts, but also contended for the liberation of the souls ofthe wise from all bodily ties, so that, escaping from all flesh,they might, as bare and blessed souls, dwell with the Fathertime without end. And that he might not seem to be outbidby Christ's promise of life everlasting to His saints, he alsoestablished purified souls in endless felicity, without return totheir former woes; but, that he might contradict Christ, hedenies the resurrection of incorruptible bodies, and maintainsthat these souls will live eternally, not only without earthlybodies, but without any bodies at all. And yet, whatever hemeant by this teaching, he at least did not teach that thesesouls should offer no religious observance to the gods whodwelt in bodies. And why did he not, unless because he didnot believe that the souls, even though separate from the body,were superior to those gods? Wherefore, if these philosopherswill not dare (as I think they will not) to set human soulsabove the gods who are most blessed, and yet are tied eternally1 Book x. 30.544 THE [BOOK XIII.CITY OF GOD.to their bodies, why do they find that absurd which theChristian faith preaches, ' namely, that our first parents wereso created that, if they had not sinned, they would not havebeen dismissed from their bodies by any death, but wouldhave been endowed with immortality as the reward of theirobedience, and would have lived eternally with their bodies;and further, that the saints will in the resurrection inhabitthose very bodies in which they have here toiled, but in suchsort that neither shall any corruption or unwieldiness besuffered to attach to their flesh, nor any grief or trouble tocloud their felicity?20. That theflesh now resting in peace shall be raised to a perfection notenjoyed bytheflesh ofour first parents.Thus the souls of departed saints are not affected by thedeath which dismisses them from their bodies, because theirflesh rests in hope, no matter what indignities it receives aftersensation is gone. For they do not desire that their bodies beforgotten, as Plato thinks fit, but rather, because they rememberwhat has been promised by Him who deceives no man, andwho gave them security for the safe keeping even of the hairsof their head, they with a longing patience wait in hope of theresurrection of their bodies, in which they have suffered manyhardships, and are now to suffer never again. For if they didnot " hate their own flesh," when it, with its native infirmity,opposed their will, and had to be constrained by the spirituallaw, how much more shall they love it, when it shall evenitself have become spiritual! For as, when the spirit servesthe flesh, it is fitly called carnal, so, when the flesh serves thespirit, it will justly be called spiritual Not that it is convertedinto spirit, as some fancy from the words, " It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption," 2 but because it is subject to the spirit with a perfect and marvellous readiness ofobedience, and responds in all things to the will that has enteredon immortality,—all reluctance, all corruption, and all slownessbeing removed. For the body will not only be better than itwas here in its best estate of health, but it will surpass theA catena of passages, showing that this is the catholic Christian faith, willbe found in Bull's State of Man before the Fall ( Works, vol. ii. ).21 Cor. xv. 42.BOOK XIII. ] OF PARADISE. 545bodies of our first parents ere they sinned. For, though theywere not to die unless they should sin, yet they used food asmen do now, their bodies not being as yet spiritual, but animalonly. And though they decayed not with years, nor drewnearer to death,- -a condition secured to them in God's marvellous grace by the tree of life, which grew along with theforbidden tree in the midst of Paradise, -yet they took othernourishment, though not of that one tree, which was interdicted not because it was itself bad, but for the sake of commending a pure and simple obedience, which is the great virtueof the rational creature set under the Creator as his Lord. For,though no evil thing was touched, yet if a thing forbidden.was touched, the very disobedience was sin. They were, then,nourished by other fruit, which they took that their animalbodies might not suffer the discomfort of hunger or thirst; butthey tasted the tree of life, that death might not steal uponthem from any quarter, and that they might not, spent withage, decay. Other fruits were, so to speak, their nourishment,but this their sacrament. So that the tree of life would seemto have been in the terrestrial Paradise what the wisdom ofGod is in the spiritual, of which it is written, " She is a treeof life to them that lay hold upon her." 121. Of Paradise, that it can be understood in a spiritual sense without sacrificingthe historic truth of the narrative regarding the real place.On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradiseitself, where the first men, the parents of the huinan race, are,according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been;and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants asvirtues and habits of life, as if they had no existence in theexternal world, but were only so spoken of or related for thesake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a realterrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these twowomen, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were bornto Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free,because the apostle says that in them the two covenants wereprefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock whenMoses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure,as the same apostle says, "Now that rock was Christ! " 21 Prov. iii. 18.VOL. L2 1 Cor. x. 4.2 МNo546 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XIII. .one, then, denies that Paradise may signifythe life of theblessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude,temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; itsfruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge ofgood and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. Thepunishment which God appointed was in itself a just, and therefore a good thing; but man's experience of it is not good.These things can also and more profitably be understood ofthe Church, so that they become prophetic foreshadowings ofthings to come. Thus Paradise is the Church, as it is called inthe Canticles; the four rivers of Paradise are the four gospels;the fruit-trees the saints, and the fruit their works; the treeof life is the holy of holies, Christ; the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil, the will's free choice. For if man despisethe will of God, he can only destroy himself; and so he learnsthe difference between consecrating himself to the commongood and revelling in his own. For he who loves himself isabandoned to himself, in order that, being overwhelmed withfears and sorrows, he may cry, if there be yet soul in him tofeel his ills, in the words of the psalm, " My soul is cast downwithin me," and when chastened, may say, " Because of hisstrength I will wait upon Thee." These and similar allegoricalinterpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise withoutgiving offence to any one, while yet we believe the stricttruth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrativeof facts.4"322. That the bodies of the saints shall after the resurrection be spiritual, andyet flesh shall not be changed into spirit.The bodies of the righteous, then, such as they shall be inthe resurrection, shall need neither any fruit to preserve themfrom dying of disease or the wasting decay of old age, nor anyother physical nourishment to allay the cravings of hunger orof thirst; for they shall be invested with so sure and every1 Cant. iv. 13. 2 Ps. xlii. 6. 3 Ps. lix. 9.4 Those who wish to pursue this subject will find a pretty full collection ofopinions in the learned commentary on Genesis by the Jesuit Pererius. Philowas, of course, the leading culprit, but Ambrose and other Church fathers wentnearly as far. Augustine condemns the Seleucians for this among other heresies,that they denied a visible Paradise. -De Hares. 59.BOOK XIII . ] THE NATURAL AND SPIRITUAL BODY. 547way inviolable an immortality, that they shall not eat savewhen they choose, nor be under the necessity of eating, whilethey enjoy the power of doing so. For so also was it withthe angels who presented themselves to the eye and touch ofmen, not because they could do no otherwise, but becausethey were able and desirous to suit themselves to men by akind of manhood ministry. For neither are we to suppose,when men receive them as guests, that the angels eat only inappearance, though to any who did not know them to beangels they might seem to eat from the same necessity as ourselves. So these words spoken in the Book of Tobit, " Yousaw me eat, but you saw it but in vision; " that is, you thoughtI took food as you do for the sake of refreshing my body.But if in the case of the angels another opinion seems morecapable of defence, certainly our faith leaves no room to doubtregarding our Lord Himself, that even after His resurrection,and when now in spiritual but yet real flesh, He ate and drankwith His disciples; for not the power, but the need, of eatingand drinking is taken from these bodies. And so they willbe spiritual, not because they shall cease to be bodies, butbecause they shall subsist by the quickening spirit.23. What we are to understand by the animal and spiritual body; or ofthosewho die in Adam, and ofthose who are made alive in Christ.For as those bodies of ours, that have a living soul, thoughnot as yet a quickening spirit, are called soul-informed bodies,and yet are not souls but bodies, so also those bodies arecalled spiritual,-yet God forbid we should therefore supposethem to be spirits and not bodies,-which, being quickened bythe Spirit, have the substance, but not the unwieldiness and corruption offlesh. Man will then be not earthly but heavenly, —not because the body will not be that very body which wasmade of earth, but because by its heavenly endowment it willbe a fit inhabitant of heaven, and this not by losing its nature,but by changing its quality. The first man, of the earthearthy, was made a living soul, not a quickening spirit, —whichrank was reserved for him as the reward of obedience. Andtherefore his body, which required meat and drink to satisfyhunger and thirst, and which had no absolute and indestructibleTobit xii. 19.548 [BOOK XIII. THE CITY OF GOD.immortality, but by means of the tree of life warded offthe necessity of dying, and was thus maintained in the flowerof youth, this body, I say, was doubtless not spiritual, but`animal; and yet it would not have died but that it provokedGod's threatened vengeance by offending. And though sustenance was not denied him even outside Paradise, yet, being forbidden the tree of life, he was delivered over to the wasting oftime, at least in respect of that life which, had he not sinned,he might have retained perpetually in Paradise, though onlyin an animal body, till such time as it became spiritual inacknowledgment of his obedience.Wherefore, although we understand that this manifest death,which consists in the separation of soul and body, was alsosignified by God when He said, " In the day thou eatestthereof thou shalt surely die," it ought not on that account toseem absurd that they were not dismissed from the body on thatvery day on which they took the forbidden and death- bringingfruit. For certainly on that very day their nature was alteredfor the worse and vitiated, and by their most just banishmentfrom the tree of life they were involved in the necessity evenof bodily death, in which necessity we are born. And therefore the apostle does not say, " The body indeed is doomed todie on account of sin," but he says, "The body indeed isdead because of sin." Then he adds, " But if the Spirit ofHim that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, Hethat raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken yourmortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." Thenaccordingly shall the body become a quickening spirit whichis now a living soul; and yet the apostle calls it " dead," because already it lies under the necessity of dying. But inParadise it was so made a living soul, though not a quickeningspirit, that it could not properly be called dead, for, savethrough the commission of sin, it could not come under thepower of death. Now, since God by the words, " Adam, whereart thou?" pointed to the death of the soul, which resultswhen He abandons it, and since in the words, " Earth thouart, and unto earth shalt thou return,"" He signified thedeath of the body, which results when the soul departs from1 Gen. ii. 17. 2 Rom. viii . 10, 11. 3 Gen. iii. 19.BOOK XIII. ] CONSTITUTION OF ADAM'S NATURE. 549it, we are led, therefore, to believe that He said nothing ofthe second death, wishing it to be kept hidden, and reservingit for the New Testament dispensation, in which it is mostplainly revealed. And this He did in order that, first of all,it might be evident that this first death, which is common toall, was the result of that sin which in one man became common to all.¹ But the second death is not common to all, thosebeing excepted who were " called according to His purpose.For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to beconformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. "? Those the grace of God has,by a Mediator, delivered from the second death.Thus the apostle states that the first man was made in ananimal body. For, wishing to distinguish the animal bodywhich now is from the spiritual, which is to be in the resurrection, he says, " It is sown in corruption, it is raised inincorruption: it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory:it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown anatural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Then, to provethis, he goes on, " There is a natural body, and there is aspiritual body." And to show what the animated body is,he says, "Thus it was written, The first man Adam was madea living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. " 3He wished thus to show what the animated body is, thoughScripture did not say of the first man Adam, when his soulwas created by the breath of God, " Man was made in ananimated body," but " Man was made a living soul." Bythese words, therefore, " The first man was made a living soul,"the apostle wishes man's animated body to be understood.But how he wishes the spiritual body to be understood heshows when he adds, " But the last Adam was made aquickening spirit," plainly referring to Christ, who has sorisen from the dead that He cannot die any more. He thengoes on to say, " But that was not first which is spiritual,but that which is natural; and afterward that which isspiritual." And here he much more clearly asserts that hereferred to the animal body when he said that the first man1 "In uno commune factum est omnibus. "31 Cor. xv. 42-45.Rom. viii . 28, 29.4 Gen. ii. 7.550 [BOOK XIII THE CITY OF GOD.was made a living soul, and to the spiritual when he said thatthe last man was made a quickening spirit. The animalbody is the first, being such as the first Adam had, and whichwould not have died had he not sinned, being such also aswe now have, its nature being changed and vitiated by sin tothe extent of bringing us under the necessity of death, andbeing such as even Christ condescended first of all to assume,not indeed of necessity, but of choice; but afterwards comesthe spiritual body, which already is worn by anticipation byChrist as our head, and will be worn by His members in theresurrection of the dead.Then the apostle subjoins a notable difference between thesetwo men, saying, “ The first man is of the earth, earthy; thesecond man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, suchare they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, suchare they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne theimage of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of theheavenly." So he elsewhere says, " As many of you as havebeen baptized into Christ have put on Christ; "2 but in verydeed this shall be accomplished when that which is animal inus by our birth shall have become spiritual in our resurrection. For, to use his words again, " We are saved by hope."³Now we bear the image of the earthly man by the propagation of sin and death, which pass on us by ordinary generation; but we bear the image of the heavenly by the grace ofpardon and life eternal, which regeneration confers upon usthrough the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.And He is the heavenly Man of Paul's passage, because Hecame from heaven to be clothed with a body of earthly mortality, that He might clothe it with heavenly immortality.And he calls others heavenly, because by grace they becomeHis members, that, together with them, He may become oneChrist, as head and body. In the same epistle he puts this yetmore clearly: Since by man came death, by Man came alsothe resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, evenso in Christ shall all be made alive,” —that is to say, in aspiritual body which shall be made a quickening spirit."611 Cor. xv. 47-49.3 Rom. viii. 24.2 Gal. iii. 27.41 Cor. xv. 21 , 22.NotBOOK XIII. ] ADAM A LIVING SOUL. 551that all who die in Adam shall be members of Christ,-for thegreat majority shall be punished in eternal death, but heuses the word " all " in both clauses, because, as no one diesin an animal body except in Adam, so no one is quickeneda spiritual body save in Christ. We are not, then, by anymeans to suppose that we shall in the resurrection have sucha body as the first man had before he sinned, nor that thewords, " As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy,"are to be understood of that which was brought about by sin;for we are not to think that Adam had a spiritual body beforehe fell, and that, in punishment of his sin, it was changed intoan animal body. If this be thought, small heed has beengiven to the words of so great a teacher, who says, “ There isa natural body, there is also a spiritual body; as it is written,The first man Adam was made a living soul." Was it aftersin he was made so? or was not this the primal conditionof man from which the blessed apostle selects his testimonyto show what the animal body is?24. How we must understand that breathing of God by which " the first manwas made a living soul, " and that also by which the Lord conveyed HisSpirit to His disciples when He said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost."Some have hastily supposed from the words, " God breathedinto Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became aliving soul," that a soul was not then first given to man, butthat the soul already given was quickened by the Holy Ghost.They are encouraged in this supposition by the fact that theLord Jesus after His resurrection breathed on His disciples,and said, " Receive ye the Holy Spirit. " From this theysuppose that the same thing was effected in either case, asif the evangelist had gone on to say, And they became livingsouls. But if he had made this addition, we should onlyunderstand that the Spirit is in some way the life of souls,and that without Him reasonable souls must be accounteddead, though their bodies seem to live before our eyes. Butthat this was not what happened when man was created, thevery words of the narrative sufficiently show: " And God mademan dust of the earth;" which some have thought to rendermore clearly by the words, " And God formed man of the clay1 Gen. ii. 7. 2 John xx. 22.552 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XIII. .of the earth." For it had before been said that "there wentup a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of theground," in order that the reference to clay, formed of thismoisture and dust, might be understood. For on this versethere immediately follows the announcement, " And Godcreated man dust of the earth;" so those Greek manuscriptshave it from which this passage has been translated intoLatin. But whether one prefers to read " created " or "formed,”where the Greek reads erλaoev, is of little importance; yet"formed" is the better rendering. But those who preferred"created " thought they thus avoided the ambiguity arisingfrom the fact, that in the Latin language the usage obtainsthat those are said to form a thing who frame some feignedand fictitious thing. This man, then, who was created of thedust of the earth, or of the moistened dust or clay,—this " dustof the earth " (that I may use the express words of Scripture)was made, as the apostle teaches, an animated body when hereceived a soul. This man, he says, " was made a living soul; "that is, this fashioned dust was made a living soul.They say, Already he had a soul, else he would not becalled a man; for man is not a body alone, nor a soul alone,but a being composed of both. This, indeed, is true, that thesoul is not the whole man, but the better part of man; thebody not the whole, but the inferior part of man; and thatthen, when both are joined, they receive the name of man,—which, however, they do not severally lose even when wespeak of them singly. For who is prohibited from saying, incolloquial usage, " That man is dead, and is now at rest or intorment," though this can be spoken only of the soul; or " Heis buried in such and such a place," though this refers onlyto the body? Will they say that Scripture follows no suchusage? On the contrary, it so thoroughly adopts it, that evenwhile a man is alive, and body and soul are united, it callseach of them singly by the name " man," speaking of the soulas the " inward man," and of the body as the " outward man,"as if there were two men, though both together are indeed butBut we must understand in what sense man is said tobe in the image of God, and is yet dust, and to return to the22 Cor. iv. 16.one.1 Gen. ii. 6."2BOOK XIII. ] GOD'S BREATHING UPON ADAM. 553dust. The former is spoken of the rational soul, which Godby His breathing, or, to speak more appropriately, by His inspiration, conveyed to man, that is, to his body; but the latterrefers to his body, which God formed of the dust, and towhich a soul was given, that it might become a living body,that is, that man might become a living soul.Wherefore, when our Lord breathed on His disciples, andsaid, “ Receive ye the Holy Ghost," He certainly wished it tobe understood that the Holy Ghost was not only the Spiritof the Father, but of the only-begotten Son Himself. Forthe same Spirit is, indeed, the Spirit of the Father and ofthe Son, making with them the trinity of Father, Son, andSpirit, not a creature, but the Creator. For neither was thatmaterial breath which proceeded from the mouth of His fleshthe very substance and nature of the Holy Spirit, but ratherthe intimation, as I said, that the Holy Spirit was commonto the Father and to the Son; for they have not each a separate Spirit, but both one and the same. Now this Spirit isalways spoken of in sacred Scripture by the Greek wordTVεûμa, as the Lord, too, named Him in the place cited whenHe gave Him to His disciples, and intimated the gift by thebreathing of His lips; and there does not occur to me anyplace in the whole Scriptures where He is otherwise named.But in this passage where it is said, " And the Lord formedman dust of the earth, and breathed, or inspired, into his facethe breath of life; " the Greek has not πveûua, the usual wordfor the Holy Spirit, but πvoń, a word more frequently usedof the creature than of the Creator; and for this reason someLatin interpreters have preferred to render it by " breath "rather than " spirit." For this word occurs also in the Greekin Isa. lvii. 16, where God says, " I have made all breath,"meaning, doubtless, all souls. Accordingly, this word voń issometimes rendered " breath," sometimes " spirit," sometimesinspiration," sometimes " aspiration, " sometimes " soul," evenwhen it is used of God. IIveûua, on the other hand, is uniformlyrendered " spirit," whether of man, of whom the apostle says,"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spiritof man which is in him? " or of beast, as in the book of11 Cor. ii. 11."554 THE CITY OF GOD. [BOOK XIIL2Solomon, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to theearth? " or of that physical spirit which is called wind, forso the Psalmist calls it: " Fire and hail; snow and vapours;stormy wind; " or of the uncreated Creator Spirit, of whomthe Lord said in the gospel, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost,"indicating the gift by the breathing of His mouth; and whenHe says, " Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of theFather, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," words which veryexpressly and excellently commend the Trinity; and where itis said, " God is a Spirit; '"4 and in very many other placesof the sacred writings. In all these quotations from Scripture we do not find in the Greek the word voń used, butTVEÛμa, and in the Latin, not flatus, but spiritus. Wherefore,referring again to that place where it is written, " He inspired,"or, to speak more properly, " breathed into his face the breathof life," even though the Greek had not used πvoń (as it has)but πveûμa, it would not on that account necessarily followthat the Creator Spirit, who in the Trinity is distinctivelycalled the Holy Ghost, was meant, since, as has been said, itis plain that vevμa is used not only of the Creator, but alsoof the creature.But, say they, when the Scripture used the word " spirit,""it would not have added " of life " unless it meant us tounderstand the Holy Spirit; nor, when it said, “ Man becamea soul," would it also have inserted the word " living " unlessthat life of the soul were signified which is imparted to itfrom above by the gift of God. For, seeing that the soul byitself has a proper life of its own, what need, they ask, wasthere of adding living, save only to show that the life whichis given it by the Holy Spirit was meant? What is this butto fight strenuously for their own conjectures, while they carelessly neglect the teaching of Scripture? Without troublingthemselves much, they might have found in a preceding pageof this very book of Genesis the words, " Let the earth bringforth the living soul," when all the terrestrial animals werecreated. Then at a slight interval, but still in the same book,3 Matt. xxviii. 19.6 Gen. i. 24.1 Eccles. iii. 21.4 John iv. 24.5 46 2 Ps. cxlviii. 8.Breath, " Eng. ver.BOOK XIII. ] CHRIST'S BREATHING ON THE DISCIPLES. 555was it impossible for them to notice this verse, " All in whosenostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land,died," by which it was signified that all the animals whichlived on the earth had perished in the deluge? If, then, wefind that Scripture is accustomed to speak both of the " livingsoul " and the " spirit of life " even in reference to beasts; andif in this place, where it is said, " All things which have thespirit of life," the word Tvoń, not veûμa, is used; why maywe not say, What need was there to add "living," since thesoul cannot exist without being alive? or, What need to add"of life " after the word spirit? But we understand that Scripture used these expressions in its ordinary style so long as itspeaks of animals, that is, animated bodies, in which the soulserves as the residence of sensation; but when man is spokenof, we forget the ordinary and established usage of Scripture,whereby it signifies that man received a rational soul, whichwas not produced out of the waters and the earth like theother living creatures, but was created by the breath of God.Yet this creation was so ordered that the human soul shouldlive in an animal body, like those other animals of which theScripture said, " Let the earth produce every living soul,"and regarding which it again says that in them is the breathof life, where the word von and not πveûμa is used in theGreek, and where certainly not the Holy Spirit, but theirspirit, is signified under that name.But, again, they object that breath is understood to havebeen emitted from the mouth of God; andif we believe thatis the soul, we must consequently acknowledge it to be of thesame substance, and equal to that wisdom, which says, " Icome out of the mouth of the Most High." Wisdom, indeed,does not say it was breathed out of the mouth of God, butproceeded out of it. But as we are able, when we breathe,to make a breath, not of our own human nature, but of thesurrounding air, which we inhale and exhale as we draw ourbreath and breathe again, so almighty God was able to makebreath, not of His own nature, nor of the creature beneathHim, but even of nothing; and this breath, when He communicated it to man's body, He is most appropriately said to1 Ecclus. xxiv. 3.556 THE CITY OF GOD [BOOK XIIL .have breathed or inspired, the Immaterial breathing it alsoimmaterial, but the Immutable not also the immutable; forit was created, He uncreated. Yet, that these persons whoare forward to quote Scripture, and yet know not the usagesof its language, may know that not only what is equal andconsubstantial with God is said to proceed out of His mouth,let them hear or read what God says: " So then because thouart lukewarm , and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee outof my mouth." 1There is no ground, then, for our objecting, when the apostleso expressly distinguishes the animal body from the spiritual,-that is to say, the body in which we now are from that inwhich we are to be. He says, "It is sown a natural body, itis raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and thereis a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adamwas made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, butthat which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritualThe first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is theLord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also thatare earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also thatare heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy,we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." 2 Of all whichwords of his we have previously spoken. The animal body,accordingly, in which the apostle says that the first manAdam was made, was not so made that it could not die atall, but so that it should not die unless he should have sinned.That body, indeed, which shall be made spiritual and immortalby the quickening Spirit shall not be able to die at all; asthe soul has been created immortal, and therefore, although bysin it may be said to die, and does lose a certain life of itsown, namely, the Spirit of God, by whom it was enabled tolive wisely and blessedly, yet it does not cease living a kindof life, though a miserable, because it is immortal by creation.So, too, the rebellious angels, though by sinning they did ina sense die, because they forsook God, the Fountain of life,which while they drank they were able to live wisely andwell, yet they could not so die as to utterly cease living and1 Rev. iii. 16. 21 Cor. xv. 44-49.BOOK XIII . ] CONCLUSION. 557feeling, for they are immortals by creation. And so, after thefinal judgment, they shall be hurled into the second death,and not even there be deprived of life or of sensation, butshall suffer torment. But those men who have been embracedby God's grace, and are become the fellow- citizens of the holyangels who have continued in bliss, shall never more eithersin or die, being endued with spiritual bodies; yet, beingclothed with immortality, such as the angels enjoy, of whichthey cannot be divested even by sinning, the nature of theirflesh shall continue the same, but all carnal corruption andunwieldiness shall be removed.There remains a question which must be discussed, and,by the help of the Lord God of truth, solved: If the motionof concupiscence in the unruly members of our first parentsarose out of their sin, and only when the divine grace desertedthem; and if it was on that occasion that their eyes wereopened to see, or, more exactly, notice their nakedness, andthat they covered their shame because the shameless motionof their members was not subject to their will, -how, then,would they have begotten children had they remained sinlessas they were created? But as this book must be concluded,and so large a question cannot be summarily disposed of, wemay relegate it to the following book, in which it will be moreconveniently treated.MURRAY AND GIEB, EDINBURGH,PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.</p><p>LIST OF WORKSPUBLISHED BYT. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.SUBSCRIPTION BOOKS.Foreign Theological Library.MESSRS. CLARK beg respectfully to intimate that from this timethey will allow a Selection of Twenty Volumes (or more at the sameratio) from the various Series, with the exception of the Volumes issuedin 1868-69-70. No Duplicates allowed in a Selection of Twelve orTwenty Volumes.At the Subscription Price of £5, 5s.Any 12 vols. of First Series (or more at same ratio),FIRST SERIES, 29 vols. demy 8vo.Hengstenberg's Commentary on the Psalms. vols.Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine. 2 vols.Gieseler's Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. 5 vols.Neander's General Church History. 9 vols.Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts. 4 vols.Selling Price.£ s. d.3 3 0netto 7 12 0Olshausen on the Romans.Olshausen on the Corinthians.Olshausen on the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessa- lonians.Olshausen on Philippians, Titus, and Timothy.Olshausen and Ebrard on the Hebrews.Havernick's General Introduction to the Old Testament.SECOND SERIES, 20 vols. demy 8vo, cloth,Stier on the Words of the Lord Jesus 8 vols.Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament. 4 vols.Ullmann's Reformers before the Reformation. 2 vols.Gerlach's Commentary on the Pentateuch. 1 vol.Müller on the Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols. (new translation).Baumgarten's Apostolic History. 3 vols.55 02 T. AND T. CLARK'S LIST.Selling Price.£ 8. d.THIRD SERIES, 20 vols. demy 8vo, cloth, .550Kurtz's History of the Old Covenant. 3 vols.Stier on the Words of the Risen Saviour, etc. 1 vol.Tholuck on the Gospel of St. John. 1 vol.Hengstenberg on Ecclesiastes, etc. 1 vol.Tholuck on Christ's Sermon on the Mount. 1 vol.Ebrard on Epistles of John. 1 vol.Dorner on the Person of Christ. 5 vols.Lange on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. 3 vols.Oosterzee and Lange on St. Luke's Gospel. 2 vols.Ebrard's Gospel History. 1 vol.Kurtz's Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament. 1 vol.FOURTH SERIES (1864-71),880Any two years in this series can be had at Subscription price.(1864-65.)Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. 3 vols.Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. 2 vols.220Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. 1 vol.(1866. )Keil and Delitzsch on Samuel. 1 vol.Keil and Delitzsch on Job. 2 vols. 110 Martensen's System of Christian Doctrine. 1 vol.Delitzsch on Isaiah. Vol. I. (1867.)Delitzsch Delitzsch onon Biblical Isaiah.Psychology Vol. 11.. 110Auberlen on Divine Revelation.(1868.)Keil's Commentary on the Minor Prophets. 2 vols.Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. 1.Harless' System of Christian Ethics. 1 vol.1 1 0(1869.)Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. 1 vol.Stier on the Words of the Apostles. 1 vol.Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament.Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament.1 10 Vol. I. Vol. I.(1870.)Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament.Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament.Schmid's New Testament Theology. 1 vol.Vol. II.Vol. II. 110Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. II.The First Issue for 1871 comprises- Delitzsch's Commentary on the Psalms. Vols. 1. and II.This Subscription includes other two volumes, the names of which will be announced shortly.110The Retail Bookseller is entitled to charge 24s. if the Subscription is notpaid by his Customer in advance.BENGEL'S GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. (SixthThousand now ready. ) Now first translated into English,with Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative, in fivelarge volumes, demy 8vo, Edited by Rev. ANDREW R.FAUSSETT, M.A., Rector of St. Cuthbert's, York, · netto 1 11T. and T. Clark's Publications.Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s . 6d. ,The Training of the Twelve;OR,EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES IN THE GOSPELSEXHIBITING THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF JESUS UNDERDISCIPLINE FOR THE APOSTLESHIP.BY THEREV. ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE.'Open the book at almost any page, and you meet with something that strikes and in- terests you. Look a little closer, and you find that it everywhere gives ample evidence of honest manful labour, unusually extensive and varied reading, and ripe scholarship. . . .The book throughout teems with fresh and suggestive thought.'—Daily Review.'Mr. Bruce has got a capital idea, and has worked it out with great ability. There is much that is suggestive and valuable in these elaborate and instructive sermons.'- English Independent.'Mr. Bruce deals with his subject in a sincere, thorough, and thoughtful way.'— English Churchman.Just published, in two volumes, 8vo, price 21s. ,History of Protestant Theology,PARTICULARLY IN GERMANY:Viewed according to its Fundamental Movement,AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS, MORAL,AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE.BY DR. J. A. DORNER,OBERCONSISTORIALRATH AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BERLIN.TRANSLATED BY THEREV. GEORGE ROBSON, M.A., INVERNESS,ANDSOPHIA TAYLOR.WITH A PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION BYTHE AUTHOR.VOL. I.•T. and T. Clark's Publications.LANGE'SCommentaries on the Old andNew Testaments.MESSRS. CLARK have now pleasure in intimating their arrangements, in conjunction with the well- known firm of SCRIBNER AND Co. , of New York, andunder the Editorship of Dr. PHILIP SCHAFF, for the Publication of Translationsof the Commentaries of Dr. LANGE and his Collaborateurs, on the Old and NewTestaments.Of the OLD TESTAMENT, they have published theCOMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS, One Volume,imperial 8vo, to which is prefixed a Theological and Homiletical Introduction to the Old Testament, and a Special Introduction to Genesis. ByProfessor TAYLER LEWIS, LL.D., comprising Excursus on all the chief subjects of Controversy.COMMENTARY ON PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, ANDTHE SONG OF SOLOMON, in One Volume. By OTTO ZOCKler, D.D. ,Professor of Theology at Greisswald.COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS,in One Volume. By Dr. C. W. E. NAGELSBACH.Other Volumes on the Old Testament are in active preparation, and will beannounced as soon as ready.Messrs. CLARK have already published in the FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL Librarythe Commentaries on St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and the Acts of theApostles.They will publish (early in September) ,COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN, in OneVolume. By J. P. LANGE, D.D. Translated, Revised, Enlarged, andEdited by Rev. Drs. YEOMAN and SCHAFF.There are now ready (in imperial 8vo, double column),COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THEROMANS. By J. P. LANGE, D.D. , and F. R. FAY. Revised, Enlarged,and Edited by Dr. SCHAFF.COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THECORINTHIANS. By C. F. KLING, D.D.T. and T. Clark's Publications.Lange's Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments-CONTINUED.COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THEGALATIANS, by ОTто SCHмOLLER, P.D. EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS,and COLOSSIANS, by KARL BRAUNE, D.D. In One Volume.COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS, by Professors AUBERLEN and RIGGENBACH. On the Epistles toTIMOTHY, TITUS, and PHILEMON, by Professor VAN OOsterzee.the Epistle to the HEBREWS, by C. M. MOLL, D.D. In One Volume.OnCOMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, by Prof.VAN OOSTERZEE. On the Epistles of PETER, by C. F. FRONMULLER, Ph.D.On the Epistles of JOHN, by K. BRAUNE, D.D. On the Epistle of JUDE,by C. F. FRONMULLER, Ph.D. In One Volume.The New Testament is thus complete, with the exception of the Commentaryon St. John's Gospel and on the Book of Revelation, which are in progress.The Commentaries on Matthew, in one volume; Mark and Luke, in onevolume; and on Acts, in one volume, may be had uniform with the above ifdesired.Each of the above volumes (three on Old Testament and five on Epistles)will be supplied to Subscribers to the FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY andANTE- NICENE LIBRARY, or to Purchasers of complete sets of Old Testament(so far as published) , and of Epistles, at 15s. The price to others will be21s. each volume.Dr. Lange's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments is the combined labour of a large number of the most able and distinguished scholars and divines of Europe, who have spared no pains to make it the standard commentary of Christendom. Dr. Schaff is being assisted by several of the most eminent scholars in the United States, among whom are Professors Shedd, Yeoman, Hackett, Kendrick, Day, Drs. Poor, Schaeffer,and Tayler Lewis, and has made large and valuable additions, comprising nearly one- third more matter than the original German. It thus combines the united evangelical scholarship of Europe and America, and is a commentary truly scholarly and learned,yet popular, orthodox, and sound in the evangelical sense, while it is unsectarian and liberal, and catholic in spirit and aim, combiuing with original research the most valuable results of the exegetical labours of the past and the present, and making them available for the practical use of the clergy and the general good of the Church. No minister's or layman's library will be complete without it.It is with no common feelings of gratification that we note the progress of this truly noble work of Dr. Lange's through the press. There is no commentary in our language at all to compare with it in fulness, availableness, and scholarly care. . . . Those who have been turned away from buying or using it by reason of its bulk, or its look as acompilation, have lost much thereby. The series combines in quite an unexampled way original scholarship of the first order, with doctrinal and homiletical matter of a very rich and varied character.'-Presbyterian.T. and T. Clark's Publications.Just published, in one large 8vo volume, handsomely bound, price 128.,A History of the Christian Councils,FROM THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS,TO THE CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL OF NICEA, A.D. 325.By CHARLES JOSEPH HEFELE, D.D.,Bishop of Rottenburg, formerly Professor of Theology in the University of Tübingen.Translated from the German, and Edited byWILLIAM R. CLARK, M.A. Oxon . ,Prebendary of Wells, and Vicar of Taunton.' Hefele, the most learned of the German bishops.'- Guardian.This is the standard book on the early Councils. The translator and editor has bestowed great pains on his part of the work, and the result is a volume which all students will welcome.'-Freeman.'The most learned historian of the Councils.'-Pere Gratry.'We cordially commend Hefele's Councils to the English student. The introductory chapter contains a valuable enumeration of the several collections and histories. The subjects of the Ante-Nicene Synods are briefly but lucidly epitomized, and the Canons (where known) are given in the original languages, with historical and explanatory comments. The remainder is devoted to the Council of Nicæa; it offers a concise andlucid summary of the three questions in controversy.'-John Bull.A book of the most accurate learning, careful and judicious criticism, and great theological fairness and honesty. A more useful addition to the library of an English theological student we can hardly imagine.'-Church Opinion.'Hefele's great work is of standard rank and primary importance to historical students.' Union Review. DJust published, in royal 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,A Harmony of the Four Gospels,IN GREEK,According to the Text of TISCHENDORF. With a Collation of the Textus Receptus,and of the Texts of GRIESBACH, LACHMANN, and TREGELLES.BY FREDERIC GARDINER, D.D.BY THE SAME AUTHOR.In royal 8vo, price 9s.,A Harmony of the Four Gospels,IN ENGLISH,According to the Authorized Version. Corrected by the best Critical Editions of the Original.</p><div><p>[<span>edit</span>]</p></div><h2 id="toc-2">Full text</h2><p><strong>The City of God (volume 1)</strong>{{GFDL}}</p><div><p>Retrieved from "<span>http://artandpopularculture.com/The_City_of_God_%28volume_1%29</span>"<div class="sm:flex sm:items-center sm:justify-center sm:flex-row sm:space-x-1 insert" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;"><ins class="adsbygoogle sm:w-1/2" style="display:block; text-align:center;" data-ad-layout="in-article" data-ad-format="fluid" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-adtest="off"></ins><script>(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script><ins class="adsbygoogle sm:w-1/2" style="display:block; text-align:center;" data-ad-layout="in-article" data-ad-format="fluid" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-adtest="off"></ins><script>(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script></div></p></div></div></section> <img class="lazyload" data-src="https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=The City of God (volume 1) (2024)" alt="The City of God (volume 1) (2024)" src=""/> <section> </section> </article> <div class="text-2xl font-semibold mt-5 mb-5">Top Articles</div> <div class="container-doc"> <a href="https://fantasygameday.net/article/the-continental-cast-meet-colin-woodell-and-the-new-stars-of-the-john-wick-universe/9196" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="group mb-20 flex flex-col items-center"> <img class="lazyload h-56 object-cover" data-src="https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=The Continental Cast: Meet Colin Woodell and the New Stars of the John Wick Universe" src=""/> <div class="group-hover:text-primary-500 block font-medium mt-5 text-2xl"> The Continental Cast: Meet Colin Woodell and the New Stars of the John Wick Universe </div> </a> <a href="https://fantasygameday.net/article/38-of-the-best-netflix-halloween-movies-that-will-scare-you-senseless/9196" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="group mb-20 flex flex-col items-center"> <img class="lazyload h-56 object-cover" data-src="https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=38 of the Best Netflix Halloween Movies That Will Scare You Senseless" src=""/> <div class="group-hover:text-primary-500 block font-medium mt-5 text-2xl"> 38 of the Best Netflix Halloween Movies That Will Scare You Senseless </div> </a> <a href="https://fantasygameday.net/article/lifetime-s-a-model-murder-filming-locations-and-cast-explored/9196" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="group mb-20 flex flex-col items-center"> <img class="lazyload h-56 object-cover" data-src="https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=Lifetime's A Model Murder: Filming Locations and Cast Explored" src=""/> <div class="group-hover:text-primary-500 block font-medium mt-5 text-2xl"> Lifetime's A Model Murder: Filming Locations and Cast Explored </div> </a> </div> <div class="text-2xl font-semibold mt-5 mb-5">Latest Posts</div> <div class="container-doc"> <a href="https://fantasygameday.net/article/meet-the-cast-of-dark-season-3-on-netflix/9196" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="group mb-20 flex flex-col items-center"> <img class="lazyload h-56 object-cover" data-src="https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=Meet the cast of Dark season 3 on Netflix" src=""/> <div class="group-hover:text-primary-500 block font-medium mt-5 text-2xl"> Meet the cast of Dark season 3 on Netflix </div> </a> <a href="https://fantasygameday.net/article/the-best-horror-movies-you-can-watch-right-now/9196" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="group mb-20 flex flex-col items-center"> <img class="lazyload h-56 object-cover" data-src="https://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?q=The best horror movies you can watch right now" src=""/> <div class="group-hover:text-primary-500 block font-medium mt-5 text-2xl"> The best horror movies you can watch right now </div> </a> </div> <div class="text-2xl font-semibold mt-5 mb-5">Recommended Articles</div> <div class="container-doc mb-5"> <ul class="ml-5 list-disc break-all"> <li><a href="https://adiunt.shop/article/breaking-benjamin-s-angels-fall-embracing-hope-amidst-desolation" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Breaking Benjamin's 'Angels Fall': Embracing Hope Amidst Desolation </a></li> <li><a href="https://anikaforex.com/article/si-hai-jing-qi-2nd-season-complete-download" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Si Hai Jing Qi 2Nd Season Complete Download </a></li> <li><a href="https://arrobo.best/article/pack-de-eduard-gre%C4%8Dner" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Pack De Eduard Grečner </a></li> <li><a href="https://bingly.online/article/ilija-stojanovic-faculty-of-political-sciences-belgrade" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Ilija Stojanović | Faculty of Political Sciences Belgrade </a></li> <li><a href="https://deteaf.best/article/pulsatile-drug-delivery-a-strategy-for-treating-chronotherapeutic-ailments" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > PULSATILE DRUG DELIVERY: A STRATEGY FOR TREATING CHRONOTHERAPEUTIC AILMENTS </a></li> <li><a href="https://ennaph.best/article/when-does-broken-pieces-update" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > When Does Broken Pieces Update </a></li> <li><a href="https://euclan.shop/article/how-much-does-yasushi-fuluichi-make-per-episode" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > How Much Does Yasushi Fuluichi Make Per Episode </a></li> <li><a href="https://ficita.online/article/estee-lauder-knowing-edp-75ml-perfume-for-women-eur-58-41" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Estee Lauder Knowing EDP 75ml Perfume For Women • EUR 58,41 </a></li> <li><a href="https://intero.best/article/clear-the-world-like-a-game-with-the-zero-believer-goddess-english-dub-release-schedule" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Clear The World Like A Game With The Zero Believer Goddess English Dub Release Schedule </a></li> <li><a href="https://medefe.best/article/70ct-emerald-cut-rutilated-quartz-loose-stone-14g-auction" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > 70ct Emerald Cut Rutilated Quartz, Loose Stone, 14g Auction </a></li> <li><a href="https://pizand.shop/article/thoroughbred-doesn%27t-flutter-manga-volume-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Thoroughbred Doesn't Flutter Manga Volume 6 </a></li> <li><a href="https://puslat.best/article/xena-podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Xena Podcast </a></li> <li><a href="https://tanadc.best/article/is-kazuki-kyan-retiring" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Is Kazuki Kyan Retiring </a></li> <li><a href="https://tenutacolliverdi.com/article/given-yorugaakeru-lyrics-english-lyrics-analysis-meaning" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Given "YorugaAkeru" lyrics, english lyrics, analysis, meaning </a></li> <li><a href="https://judyhallgrieve.com/article/the-best-hair-thickening-shampoos-for-men" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > The Best Hair Thickening Shampoos for Men </a></li> <li><a href="https://kellermancreek.com/article/how-many-movies-are-there-of-fame-after-fame" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > How Many Movies Are There Of Fame After Fame </a></li> <li><a href="https://greentreeandsons.com/article/15-of-the-weirdest-wills-ever-written-beyond" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > 15 of the Weirdest Wills Ever Written | Beyond </a></li> <li><a href="https://mareinitaly.org/article/games-like-entrusted-thoughts" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Games Like Entrusted Thoughts </a></li> <li><a href="https://passiontails.com/article/leslie-bibb-streaming" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Leslie Bibb Streaming </a></li> <li><a href="https://hudsoninternationalproperties.com/article/major-2nd-saison-2-1-english-dub" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Major 2Nd Saison 2 1 English Dub </a></li> <li><a href="https://thisisglamour.net/article/actors-in-the-movie-a-sleeping-forest" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Actors In The Movie A Sleeping Forest </a></li> <li><a href="https://prodigypianostudios.com/article/bewitched-agnes-tv-anime" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Bewitched Agnes Tv Anime </a></li> <li><a href="https://newhampshiretouristinformation.com/article/cinema-sonic-3-le-film-s-offre-une-deuxieme-bande-annonce-avec-un-maximum-de-chaos-et-detective-pikachu" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > CINEMA : Sonic 3, le film s'offre une deuxième bande-annonce avec un maximum de Chaos et « Détective Pikachu » </a></li> <li><a href="https://epecoinc.com/article/minimum-specs-for-shrek%27s-carnival-craze" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Minimum Specs For Shrek's Carnival Craze </a></li> <li><a href="https://whiteoyster1111.com/article/zlatan-ibrahimovi%C4%87-new-movie-netflix" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Zlatan Ibrahimović New Movie Netflix </a></li> <li><a href="https://359bg.com/article/him-the-smile-&-bloom-england" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Him, The Smile & Bloom England </a></li> <li><a href="https://rpgbids.com/article/is-ronin-warriors-appropriate-for-11-year-olds" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Is Ronin Warriors Appropriate For 11 Year Olds </a></li> <li><a href="https://tamarindhotelzanzibar.com/article/gesichts-make-up-foundation-concealer-primer-maybelline" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Gesichts-Make-up: Foundation, Concealer, Primer | Maybelline </a></li> <li><a href="https://grandfessier.com/article/cartomancy-anthology-pr" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Cartomancy Anthology Pr </a></li> <li><a href="https://hjmalone.com/article/how-many-seasons-does-nayuta-of-the-prophecy" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > How Many Seasons Does Nayuta Of The Prophecy </a></li> <li><a href="https://huzurrentacar.net/article/petra-biondina-volpe-lgbt" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Petra Biondina Volpe Lgbt </a></li> <li><a href="https://janeyclewer.com/article/arpeggio-of-blue-steel-ars-nova-dc-cadenza-anime" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Arpeggio of Blue Steel: Ars Nova DC & Cadenza (Anime) </a></li> <li><a href="https://jerrylieb.com/article/cheyenne-s-tattoo-power-supplies" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Cheyenne’s Tattoo Power Supplies </a></li> <li><a href="https://aemhsm.net/article/hanya-tahukah-anda" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Hanya, Tahukah Anda ? </a></li> <li><a href="https://overseaspub.com/article/little-slippey-email-change" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Little Slippey Email Change </a></li> <li><a href="https://teokl.net/article/coming-to-game-pass-s-t-a-l-k-e-r-2-heart-of-chornobyl-nine-sols-genshin-impact-benefits-and-more-xbox-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Coming to Game Pass: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chornobyl, Nine Sols, Genshin Impact Benefits, and More - Xbox Wire </a></li> <li><a href="https://caprialbum.com/article/binbogami-ga!-chapter-59" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Binbogami Ga! Chapter 59 </a></li> <li><a href="https://jazzrockworld.com/article/how-many-chapters-of-boing-boing-teacher-are-there" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > How Many Chapters Of Boing Boing Teacher Are There </a></li> <li><a href="https://quatrheurie.com/article/stalking-girl-donde-verlo" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Stalking Girl Donde Verlo </a></li> <li><a href="https://jennifermolleson.com/article/what-is-the-anime-pink-to-grey-about" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > What Is The Anime Pink To Grey About </a></li> <li><a href="https://charteritaliano.com/article/i-love-you-funko-pop-set" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > I Love You Funko Pop Set </a></li> <li><a href="https://newloan4you.com/article/20-in-1-water-testing-kit-home-easy-simple-drinking-water-test-kit-well-water-test-kit-130-strips-water-test-strips-for-hardness-ph-lead-iron-fluoride-chlorine-bacteria-etc-by-oycevila-the-retail-market" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > ✨ 20 in 1 Water Testing Kit Home, Easy & Simple Drinking Water Test Kit & Well Water Test Kit, 130 Strips Water Test Strips for Hardness, pH, Lead, Iron, Fluoride, Chlorine, Bacteria, Etc - by Oycevila — 🛍️ The Retail Market </a></li> <li><a href="https://temptressrocks.com/article/the-ice-cold-demon%27s-tale-special-fanfiction-archive" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > The Ice-Cold Demon's Tale Special Fanfiction Archive </a></li> <li><a href="https://turkranch.com/article/new-masculinities-are-they-truly-new" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > New Masculinities, Are they Truly New? </a></li> <li><a href="https://peershuskyshop.com/article/is-the-movie-alley-cat-1984-a-true-story" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Is The Movie Alley Cat (1984) A True Story </a></li> <li><a href="https://noteryeminlitercumeankara.com/article/the-pros-and-cons-of-led-bathroom-mirrors" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > The Pros and Cons of LED Bathroom Mirrors </a></li> <li><a href="https://thaisirin.com/article/the-35-best-clothing-sales-to-shop-right-now-before-all-the-black-friday-chaos" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > The 35 Best Clothing Sales to Shop Right Now Before All the Black Friday Chaos </a></li> <li><a href="https://larainewinery.com/article/what-year-was-what%27s-hidden-within-released" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > What Year Was What's Hidden Within Released </a></li> <li><a href="https://kintechbg.com/article/how-to-make-your-own-diy-hair-pomade" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > How to Make Your Own DIY Hair Pomade </a></li> <li><a href="https://weblogoz.com/article/fall-winter-fashion-mistakes-that-make-you-look-older" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Fall & Winter Fashion Mistakes that Make You Look Older </a></li> <li><a href="https://breck4sale.com/article/what-is-a-parochial-school-best-2023-explanation" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > What is a Parochial School? Best 2023 Explanation </a></li> <li><a href="https://crimealawyers.com/article/ep31-spider-man-cinematography-by-flash-bros-podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Ep31: Spider-Man Cinematography by Flash Bros. Podcast </a></li> <li><a href="https://cheapmovingprice.org/article/dovey%27s-promise-2024-plot" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Dovey's Promise (2024) Plot </a></li> <li><a href="https://thechristiandefense.com/article/the-world-of-fantasy-chapter-70" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > The World Of Fantasy Chapter 70 </a></li> <li><a href="https://mccartylawoffices.com/article/joe-manganiello-movies-on-tubi" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Joe Manganiello Movies On Tubi </a></li> <li><a href="https://tonicdetroit.com/article/takashi-kotegawa-le-trader-de-legende-japonais" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Takashi Kotegawa : le trader de légende japonais </a></li> <li><a href="https://lhlindbergphotography.com/article/pc-psn-xbox-36-skins-rox-hybrid-vendetta-frostbite-darth-id-226268783-playerauctions" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > [PC/PSN/XBOX] 36 Skins | Rox, Hybrid, Vendetta, Frostbite, Darth ... | ID 226268783 | PlayerAuctions </a></li> <li><a href="https://thecypruspiper.com/article/hair-shaft-damage-from-heat-and-drying-time-of-hair-dryer" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Hair Shaft Damage from Heat and Drying Time of Hair Dryer </a></li> <li><a href="https://angelichosts.com/article/ping-in-make-haste!" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Ping In Make Haste! </a></li> <li><a href="https://101selfhelpsuccessmotivation.com/article/how-to-use-bobby-pins-without-pulling-your-hair-out" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > How To Use Bobby Pins Without Pulling Your Hair Out </a></li> <li><a href="https://comunevarallo.com/article/kaku-nara-happy-ending-light-novel-vol-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Kaku Nara Happy Ending Light Novel Vol 1 </a></li> <li><a href="https://farrmarketing.com/article/email-impersonation-attack-cara-kerja-dan-pencegahannya" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Email Impersonation Attack: Cara Kerja dan Pencegahannya </a></li> <li><a href="https://trufflesinladue.com/article/duvivier-julien-senses-of-cinema" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Duvivier, Julien – Senses of Cinema </a></li> <li><a href="https://marketmedia.biz/article/2020-grammy-awards-the-full-list-of-winners" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > 2020 Grammy Awards: The Full List Of Winners </a></li> <li><a href="https://qcchoir.org/article/poem-fragment-gif-fight" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Poem Fragment Gif Fight </a></li> <li><a href="https://donnalaprade.com/article/did-menno-mennes-go-to-jail" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Did Menno Mennes Go To Jail </a></li> <li><a href="https://boneyard2u.com/article/ship-on-wheels-price-walmart" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Ship On Wheels Price Walmart </a></li> <li><a href="https://allmobilebd.com/article/yuki-yuna-is-a-hero:-the-hero-chapter-season-2-ep-7-release-date" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Yuki Yuna Is A Hero: The Hero Chapter Season 2 Ep 7 Release Date </a></li> <li><a href="https://sastrong.net/article/bust-a-move-bash!-mods-pc" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Bust-A-Move Bash! Mods Pc </a></li> <li><a href="https://evangelicalorthodoxcatholic.org/article/%EC%9D%B4%ED%95%98%EB%82%98-2001" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > 이하나 2001 </a></li> <li><a href="https://krasnodona.net/article/characters-les-400-coups-de-virginie" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Characters Les 400 Coups De Virginie </a></li> <li><a href="https://fpsokc.org/article/buddy-holly-nipslip" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Buddy Holly Nipslip </a></li> <li><a href="https://1280kxeg.com/article/law-of-parsimony-explanation-and-examples" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Law of Parsimony: Explanation and Examples </a></li> <li><a href="https://adaptifphotonics.com/article/pac-man-vs.-apparel" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Pac-Man Vs. Apparel </a></li> <li><a href="https://brookingheights.org/article/yo-kai-watch-franchise" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Yo-kai Watch (franchise) </a></li> <li><a href="https://kyousei.biz/article/mad-iic-a-sucker-punch" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Mad Iic-A Sucker Punch </a></li> <li><a href="https://cityparknz.com/article/taking-a-temperature-when-your-baby-toddler-or-child-has-a-fever-mayo-clinic-press" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Taking a temperature when your baby, toddler or child has a fever - Mayo Clinic Press </a></li> <li><a href="https://kernowsausages.com/article/j.t.-mollner-cincinnati" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > J.t. Mollner Cincinnati </a></li> <li><a href="https://peggynelson.com/article/i-it%27s-not-like-i-like-you-episode-58" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > I-It's Not Like I Like You Episode 58 </a></li> <li><a href="https://refugiorabadaynavarro.com/article/rozemarijn-olie-haar-maken-een-natuurlijke-verzorging-voor-je-haar" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Rozemarijn Olie Haar Maken: Een Natuurlijke Verzorging voor Je Haar </a></li> <li><a href="https://gclubsix.com/article/great-mazinger-et-getter-robot-contre-le-monstre-sid%C3%A9ral-final-fight" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Great Mazinger Et Getter Robot Contre Le Monstre Sidéral Final Fight </a></li> <li><a href="https://walkaboutstudio.com/article/why-isn%27t-bin-ich-sch%C3%B6n-1998-on-hbo" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Why Isn't Bin Ich Schön? (1998) On Hbo </a></li> <li><a href="https://fantasyhouseuk.com/article/doraemon-the-movie-nobita-s-art-world-tales-sketchbook" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Doraemon the Movie: Nobita's Art World Tales Sketchbook </a></li> <li><a href="https://rhustr.com/article/brittany-s-ex-claims-they-rekindled-just-before-love-is-blind-and-he-drove-her-to-filming" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" > Brittany's ex claims they rekindled just before Love Is Blind, and he drove her to filming </a></li> <li><a href="https://ohsdesign.com/article/oprah-barbara-chichiarelli" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Oprah Barbara Chichiarelli </a></li> <li><a href="https://recyclopedia.info/article/best-monkey-king:-hero-is-back-moments" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > Best Monkey King: Hero Is Back Moments </a></li> <li><a href="https://stockresearch.pro/article/this-device-finally-gave-my-round-face-cheekbones" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > This Device Finally Gave My Round Face Cheekbones </a></li> <li><a href="https://drainagespecialties.com/article/zaehlenwenn-funktion-microsoft-support" target="_blank" rel="noopener" > ZÄHLENWENN (Funktion) - Microsoft-Support </a></li> </ul> </div> <div class="pt-3 bg-white rounded-lg my-0"> <form class="flex justify-center w-full px-5 pt-0 pb-5" target="_top" action="https://fantasygameday.net/search-article"> <input aria-label="keyword" type="text" name="keyword" class="search-input w-full" placeholder="Search for articles" /> <button class="search-button" type="submit" value="Submit"> <img width="18" height="18" src="/static-res/img/search.svg?id=b28071f3b9c4778b36f1" alt="Search" /> </button> </form> </div> <div class="text-gray-700 bg-gray-200 rounded px-5 py-4 space-y-2 my-3"> <div class="font-semibold text-center">Article information</div> <p><span class="font-semibold">Author</span>: <span class="vcard"><a class="url fn" href="/">Dean Jakubowski Ret</a></span> </p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Last Updated</span>: <span class="posted-on"><time class="entry-date published" datetime="2024-11-30T13:50:47+07:00" itemprop="datePublished">2024-11-30T13:50:47+07:00</time></span> </p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Views</span>: 5805</p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Rating</span>: 5 / 5 (50 voted)</p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Reviews</span>: 81% of readers found this page helpful</p> </div> <div class="text-gray-700 bg-gray-200 rounded px-5 py-4 space-y-2 my-3"> <div class="font-semibold text-center">Author information</div> <p><span class="font-semibold">Name</span>: Dean Jakubowski Ret</p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Birthday</span>: 1996-05-10</p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Address</span>: Apt. 425 4346 Santiago Islands, Shariside, AK 38830-1874</p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Phone</span>: +96313309894162</p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Job</span>: Legacy Sales Designer</p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Hobby</span>: Baseball, Wood carving, Candle making, Jigsaw puzzles, Lacemaking, Parkour, Drawing</p> <p><span class="font-semibold">Introduction</span>: My name is Dean Jakubowski Ret, I am a enthusiastic, friendly, homely, handsome, zealous, brainy, elegant person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you. </p> </div> </div> </section> </main> <aside class="right-container"> <div class="hidden xl:block sticky top-2 space-y-1"> <div class="text-center " > <ins class="adsbygoogle adsense h-ad4 " data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" style="display:block" data-ad-format="auto" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-adtest="off" > </ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </div> <div class="text-center " > <ins class="adsbygoogle adsense h-ad3 " data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" style="display:block" data-ad-format="auto" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-adtest="off" > </ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </div> <div class="text-center " > <ins class="adsbygoogle adsense h-ad2 " data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" style="display:block" data-ad-format="auto" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-adtest="off" > </ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </div> </div> </aside> </div> <div class="text-center sticky top-2 right-2 hidden xl:block flex-shrink-0 " style="width: 160px; height: 600px;" > <ins class="adsbygoogle adsense h-ad4 " data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" style="display:block" data-ad-format="auto" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-full-width-responsive="true" data-adtest="off" > </ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </div> </main> <footer class=" bg-white "> <div class="container mx-auto px-5 flex flex-col pt-8 pb-5 text-center sm:text-left xl:px-10"> <div class="flex-wrap sm:flex"> <div class="sm:w-1/2 lg:w-1/5"> <div class="text-sm font-bold text-gray-600 uppercase">NAVIGATION</div> <ul class="mt-4"> <li class="mt-2"> <a href="https://fantasygameday.net" title="Home">Home</a> </li> <li class="mt-2"> <a target="_blank" href="https://fantasygameday.net/page/dmca" title="DMCA">DMCA</a> </li> <li class="mt-2"> <a target="_blank" href="https://fantasygameday.net/page/privacy-policy" title="Privacy Policy">Privacy Policy</a> </li> </ul> </div> <div class="mt-8 sm:w-1/2 sm:mt-0 lg:w-1/5 lg:mt-0"> <div class="text-sm font-bold text-gray-600 uppercase">DISCOVER</div> <ul class="mt-4"> <li class="mt-2"> <a target="_blank" href="https://fantasygameday.net/page/terms-and-conditions" title="Terms And Conditions">Terms And Conditions</a> </li> <li class="mt-2"> <a target="_blank" href="https://fantasygameday.net/page/cookie-agreement" title="Cookie Agreement">Cookie Agreement</a> </li> <li class="mt-2"> <a target="_blank" href="https://fantasygameday.net/page/contacts" title="Contacts">Contacts</a> </li> </ul> </div> <div class="mt-8 sm:w-1/2 sm:mt-12 lg:w-1/5 lg:mt-0"> <div class="text-sm font-bold text-gray-600 uppercase">CONTACT US</div> <ul class="mt-4"> <li> <a title="Email Contact Us" href="mailto:dinhthienvan1@gmail.com"> dinhthienvan1@gmail.com </a> </li> <li class="mt-2"> <a target="_blank" href="https://fantasygameday.net/page/about-us" title="About Us">About Us</a> </li> <li class="mt-2"> <a target="_blank" href="https://fantasygameday.net/page/disclaimer" title="Disclaimer">Disclaimer</a> </li> </ul> </div> <div class="mt-8 sm:w-1/2 lg:w-2/5 lg:mt-0 lg:pl-12"> <a href="https://fantasygameday.net" class="text-xl font-bold tracking-wider text-primary-500"> Fantasygameday </a> <p class="mt-2 text-base text-gray-600 sm:text-justify text-center leading-7"> Fantasygameday is a website that writes about many topics of interest to you, it's a blog that shares useful knowledge and insights for everyone about Everything. <br /> </p> </div> </div> <div class="mt-3 flex items-center flex-col sm:flex-row sm:justify-between" > <p class="text-sm text-gray-600 flex-bas"> © 2024 Fantasygameday. All Rights Reserved. </p> </div> </div> </footer> </div> <div class='code-block code-block-1' style='opacity: 0.01278399879; top: 150px; position: fixed; z-index: 9995; width: 728px; height: 250px; text-align: center; left: 36%; transform: translate(-50%, -50%); opacity: 0.01874718879;'> <script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3373908032421588" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>  <ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script></div> <div class='code-block code-block-2' style='opacity: 0.01278399879; top: 150px; position: fixed; z-index: 9995; width: 728px; height: 250px; text-align: center; left: 36%; transform: translate(-50%, -50%); opacity: 0.01874718879;'> <script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3373908032421588" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>  <ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script></div> <div class='code-block code-block-3' style='opacity: 0.01278399879; top: 150px; position: fixed; z-index: 9995; width: 728px; height: 250px; text-align: center; left: 36%; transform: translate(-50%, -50%); opacity: 0.01874718879;'> <script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3373908032421588" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>  <ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script></div> <div class='code-block code-block-4' style='opacity: 0.01278399879; top: 550px; position: fixed; z-index: 9995; width: 300px; height: 300px; text-align: center; left: 50%; transform: translate(-50%, -50%);'> <script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3373908032421588" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>  <ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script></div> <div class='code-block code-block-5' style='opacity: 0.01278399879; top: 550px; position: fixed; z-index: 9995; width: 300px; height: 300px; text-align: center; left: 50%; transform: translate(-50%, -50%);'> <script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3373908032421588" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>  <ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3373908032421588" data-ad-slot="3352989513" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script></div> <div x-data="{ open: false }"> <button class="hidden px-4 py-2 text-white bg-blue-500 rounded select-none no-outline focus:shadow-outline" @click="open = true" id="adblock">adblock</button> <div class="fixed z-10 inset-0 overflow-y-auto" aria-labelledby="modal-title" role="dialog" aria-modal="true" x-show="open" style="display: none" id="aaaaa-modal"> <div class="flex items-end justify-center min-h-screen pt-4 px-4 pb-20 text-center sm:block sm:p-0"> <div class="fixed inset-0 bg-gray-500 bg-opacity-95 transition-opacity" aria-hidden="true"></div> <span class="hidden sm:inline-block sm:align-middle sm:h-screen" aria-hidden="true"></span> <div class="inline-block align-bottom bg-white rounded-lg text-left overflow-hidden shadow-xl transform transition-all sm:my-8 sm:align-middle sm:max-w-lg sm:w-full"> <div class="bg-white px-4 pt-5 pb-4 sm:p-6 sm:pb-4"> <div class="sm:flex sm:items-start"> <div id="ic-warning" class="mx-auto flex-shrink-0 flex items-center justify-center h-12 w-12 rounded-full bg-red-100 sm:mx-0 sm:h-10 sm:w-10"> <svg class="h-6 w-6 text-red-600" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" fill="none" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke="currentColor" aria-hidden="true"> <path stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M12 9v2m0 4h.01m-6.938 4h13.856c1.54 0 2.502-1.667 1.732-3L13.732 4c-.77-1.333-2.694-1.333-3.464 0L3.34 16c-.77 1.333.192 3 1.732 3z" /> </svg> </div> <div class="mt-3 text-center sm:mt-0 sm:ml-4 sm:text-left"> <div class="text-lg leading-6 font-medium text-gray-900" id="modal-title"> We notice you're using an ad blocker </div> <div class="mt-2"> <p class="text-sm text-gray-500"> Without advertising income, we can't keep making this site awesome for you. </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="bg-gray-50 px-4 py-3 sm:px-6 flex-center"> <button onclick="location.reload();" type="button" class="w-full inline-flex justify-center rounded-md border border-transparent shadow-sm px-4 py-2 bg-red-600 text-base font-medium text-white hover:bg-red-700 focus:outline-none focus:ring-2 focus:ring-offset-2 focus:ring-red-500 sm:ml-3 sm:w-auto sm:text-sm"> I understand and have disabled ad blocking for this site </button> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>